Good evening.

My name is Carlos Rosario and I'm the chair of the planning commission.

Welcome to this planning commission meeting.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

The parking validation machine for the garage underneath City Hall is in located in the back at the top of the stairs.

First, we'll start off with a salute to the flag.

If you are able to, please stand.

I think that's just the flag.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Under individual HS for all.

Almost got it in the last meeting.

Almost.

Next we'll move to the roll call.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Commissioner Barossio.

Here.

Commissioner Bondal?

Here.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Commissioner Cow.

Here.

Commissioner Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Escobar.

Here.

Commissioner Wynne?

Here.

Commissioner Olivario?

Yes.

Commissioner Young.

Here.

Myself is here.

We have a full house.

All right.

Summary of hearing procedures.

If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located on the table near the audiovisual technician and deposit the completed card in the basket.

There are also speaker cards in the back of the chambers and at the side entrance.

The procedure for the hearing is as follows.

After staff's presentations, applicants or appellants may make up to a five-minute presentation.

During the public comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards and the order received.

As your name is called, line up in the front of the microphone at the front of the chamber.

Generally, each speaker will be given two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes.

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted to each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, the number of speakers, and other factors.

Speakers using a translator will have double the time allotted.

After the public testimony, the applicant or appellant may make closing remarks for up to an additional five minutes.

Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers.

Response to commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

The public hearing will then be closed, and the planning commission will take action on the item.

The planning commission may request staff to respond to public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss them.

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

The planning commission's action on rezonings, pre-zonings, general plan amendments, and code amendments is only advisory to the City Council.

The City Council will hold public hearings on these items.

Section 2012 400 of the municipal code provides that the procedures for legal protests to the City Council on rezonings and pre-zonings.100.220 of the municipal code.

Agendas and all staff reports for this meeting may be accessed at the city's website.

Call to order.

Now, before I begin, I want to remind the planning commission and members of the public to follow our code of conduct at meetings.

This includes commenting on the specific agenda items only and addressing the full body.

Public speakers will not engage in a conversation directly with commissioners or staff.

All members of the planning commission staff and public are expected to refrain from abusive language, repeated failure to comply with uh the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may result in removal from the meeting.

This meeting of the planning commission will now come to order.

And if I could add one thing, I saw a comment that we received uh that said some planning commissioners have made demeaning comments about folks may or may not want housing.

If we could make sure that we're respectful here, uh that'd be great.

Okay.

Public comment time.

Public comments to the planning commission on non-agendized items.

Please fill out a speaker card and give it to the technician for any non-agendized item.

Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes.

The commission cannot take any formal action without the item being properly noticed and placed on the agenda.

In response to public comment, the planning commission is limited to the following options.

Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public, requesting staff to report back at a matter at a subsequent meeting, or directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.

Do we have any speakers for public comment for items that are not on the agenda tonight?

No.

Okay, on to deferrals and removals from the calendar.

Any schedule any items scheduled for hearing this evening for which deferral is being requested will be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral or removal.

Staff will provide an update on the items for which deferral and removal is being requested.

If you want to change any of the deferral dates recommended or speak to the question of deferring or removing these or any other items, you should say so at time.

At this time, staff, do we have any items to defer today?

Uh we do not.

Okay.

We'll move on to the consent calendar, agenda item four.

There will be no separate discussion of individual consent item consent calendar items.

They are considered to be routine and will be adopted by one motion.

If a member of the commission requests debate, separate vote or recusal of a particular item, then that item may be removed from the consent calendar by the chair considered separately.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed from the consent calendar by the chair.

Staff will provide an update on the consent calendar.

If you wish to speak on one of these items individually, please come down to the podium at this time.

Do we have any speakers for on the consent calendar staff?

We do not.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar, which solely consists of the minutes.

So we'll go to roll call vote.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynne.

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

And myself is a yes.

And the consent calendar passes unanimously.

Okay, on to public hearing.

Generally, the public hearing items are considered by the planning commission in the order on which they appear on the agenda.

However, please be advised that the commission may take items out of order to facilitate the agenda, such as to accommodate significant public testimony or may defer discussion items to later agendas for public hearing and time management purposes.

We have no items in public hearing tonight.

That is correct.

Okay.

Next, we will open the general plan hearing.

So first we start out with the general plan consent calendar for which there are no items.

That's correct, no items.

Okay, and then on to the public hearing.

Generally, the public hearing items are considered by the planning commission in the order in which they appear on the agenda.

However, please be advised that the commission may take items out of order to facilitate the agenda, such as to accommodate significant public testimony, or may defer discussion of items to later agendas for public hearing time management purposes.

We'll start with agenda item 8A, General Plan four year review policy framework.

We have a staff presentation.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Ruth Cueto, Principal Planner.

We're here to present on the four-year review policy framework, the culmination of a nine-month effort with the general plan four-year review task force.

With me tonight is Maneira Sandir, Jared Ferguson, Michelle Flores, Sanjita Gosal, and Cora McNaughton.

Okay, there we go.

Thank you.

So the General Plan 4-year review is required per goal IP-2 and provides an opportunity for the city to evaluate its progress toward key goals and make any necessary adjustments to the general plan.

Two other major drivers of the current four-year review are to maintain legal compliance with the city's current housing element and to lay the groundwork for the next housing element to begin in 2031.

This review focused on four topics, which were to increase residential capacity, looking at our jobs and employed residence balance, small multifamily housing, and the urban village strategy.

Per IP 2.11, the four-year review begins with the initiation of the task force process.

This year the Planning commission served as a task force, which allowed an opportunity to engage with the public, provide staff's analysis, and help us achieve the general plans goals.

At these task force meetings, staff presented reports with data and analysis.

The task force provided feedback and questions to help guide that work.

It was an iterative process, and the resulting outcome was the policy framework, which is what we will present to you today.

The four-year policy framework is a set of recommendations on policy and land use changes across all the four topic areas.

The framework will guide the next phase of work, which will consist of general plan and general plan text amendments, ordinance change, and ordinance changes.

The final recommendations presented to the Planning Commission and City Council will be in December 2027.

With this, I will hand it over to Michelle.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Michelle Flores and I will be covering outreach.

So outreach for the four-year review began at the end of 2025.

Staff held a virtual community meeting and created short videos describing the general plan and four-year review topics.

The videos were posted on the general plan, four-year review, project webpage, and YouTube, and were shared across social media platforms.

Outreach for the four-year review consisted of five community meetings, including four open houses, 16 stakeholder meetings, six neighborhood meetings, three focus group meetings, one with the San Jose for All Advisory Group, and to facilitate it in partnership with the Disability Advocacy Consultant.

Eight task force meetings and five intergovernmental meetings.

More than 800 community members participated in the in-person open houses, and over 422 comments were received.

A virtual version of the open houses was also offered and included the same information and activities.

Approximately 400 community members participated and 610 comments were received.

We received comments in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese.

Planning staff worked with the Office of Racial and Social Equity throughout the project.

Community engagement opportunities were promoted through various platforms, including PVCE landing page and email list, PBCE and ORSC social media, and external community partner newsletters.

Flyers for the open houses were also distributed at 11 community centers and all libraries throughout the city.

Staff prepared an outreach summary memo that summarizes comments received throughout the project across the various feedback formats.

The summary was posted on the project webpage and includes a list of all the meetings held.

Overall, the feedback received throughout this process reflected the community's recognition of the need for more housing, including more affordable housing.

There was support for mixed use and transit-oriented development to reduce the dependence on automobiles and create walkable neighborhoods.

We heard concerns about how the increase in housing would impact neighborhoods.

There were concerns about infrastructure capacity, traffic, and parking.

A recurring theme throughout all topics was the need to create complete communities rather than simply adding housing units.

Participant asked us to consider including community spaces, neighborhood serving retail, public gathering spaces, parks, and improved transit when implementing these four-year topics.

Thank you, Michelle.

Sanita Ghoshal Supervising Planner, I'm going to walk you through two topics of tonight.

The first one is job to jobs to employed resident ratio.

Jobs to employed resident or GER ratio is an indicator of how well a city balances employment opportunities with its residential base.

A higher ratio indicates that more residents can work locally, while a lower ratio suggests that many residents commute elsewhere for jobs.

San Jose historically developed as a largely residential city, resulting in many residents commuting elsewhere for work.

This jobs housing in balance contributes to traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.

More importantly, a lower number of jobs in the city reduces the fiscal benefits derived from local employment.

So improving the balance between jobs and employed residents has been a long-standing objective of the city's general plans for many decades because it improves both economic sustainability and quality of life.

The current target JER ratio in the general plan is 1.1 jobs per employed resident.

The observed JER ratio since the adoption of the general plan is since 2011 has averaged to be 0.82.

The JER ratio depends on multiple demographic and economic factors.

Adding housing capacity as we are doing proposing in this four-year review does not automatically result in proportional growth in employed residents or the resulting JER ratio.

And based on projections from multiple agencies, San Jose is not expected to experience population growth significantly beyond what was assumed in the 2015 analysis when the current JER ratio was adopted or updated.

For these reasons, staff is recommending maintaining the current JER ratio target of 1.1.

Maintaining the current ratio also supports key general plan goals, including fiscal sustainability and environmental performance while ensuring that the city remains prepared for future job-generating projects.

The scope of work for residential capacity was adding residential capacity to the general plan's current capacity of 120,000 units.

The current housing growth capacity of the general plan has been consumed by the sixth cycle housing element, and in anticipation of the seventh-cycle housing element, the residential growth capacity needs to be increased.

The recommended strategies to achieve the outcome is R modifications to the density ranges of specific general plan designations, targeted general plan amendments, and developing a framework for PQP lands.

As part of the small multifamily strategy, as we will discuss later tonight, the residential neighborhood designation is proposed to be updated to allow a maximum density of 32 dwelling units per acre.

The general plan has multiple residential or mixed-use designations, and there is a specific progression in the densities and development standards, so each can allow different types of residential development.

So to maintain this clear and logical hierarchy across designations, staff is proposing a corresponding increase in the minimum and maximum densities of some of these other designations and related height increases.

The table on the slide shows current and proposed density and heights of the land use designations.

Staff is proposing recommending the changes to.

The maximum density of residential neighborhood is proposed to change from 8 units to 32 units per acre.

Now, without adjustment, this residential neighborhood density would exceed current mixed-use neighborhood density, which is 20 units per acre.

The mixed-use designation is proposed therefore to change from the current density.

Sorry, 30.

I misspoke 30 units per acre, and this 30 units per acre current max density is proposed to change to a range of 20 to 50 units per acre for mixed-use neighborhood.

This adjustment re-stabilizes mixed use as a higher density designation related to residential neighborhood and provides a transition between higher and lower density.

Because the revised mixed-use neighborhood designation is intended to function as a mid-density residential designation.

This minimum density would allow this added minimum density would allow for townhome projects, a much-needed housing type that is currently financially feasible and in-demand citywide.

And lastly, urban residential or UR is proposed to change from the current range of 30 to 95 units per acre to 50 to 95 units per acre.

The next topic for discussion is on potential land use designation changes along the Winchester Boulevard and the Alameda corridors.

For the Winchester Boulevard Corridor between New Hall and Forest Avenue, staff conducted a site-by-side analysis of 20 parcels and is proposing the following changes.

Certain sites with existing residential uses are proposed to change to residential neighborhood or mixed-use neighborhood designation to reflect current conditions or allow the modest increase in residential density.

I forgot to say the left side is the current general plan designations.

The map on the right side shows the proposed designations.

Staff proposes to limit heights for these parcels to 85 feet consistent with height limitations in the adjustment Santana Road Valley Fair Urban Village Plan Area.

One site at North Winchester Boulevard and Woodland Road is proposed to change to mixed use neighborhood, which will support the continuation of commercial uses on the site, but adds potential for residential or mixed use development in the future.

These two currently the two areas that are bordered with red on the map on the right hand side map shown on the slide are where the UR or urban residential is proposed.

The map that was attached as exhibit A to the staff report showed the parcel at 850 North Winchester Boulevard at Corrie Avenue and 825 North Winchester Boulevard at West Heading also as changing to urban residential.

That was an oversight.

No changes proposed to these two sites.

One goal of the four-year review process is to identify housing opportunity sites needed to help meet the city's seven-cycle regional housing needs allocation or RENA obligations.

Accordingly, staff's recommendation was guided by the goal of maximizing housing yield with urban residential proposed for sites near transit jobs and amenities that are better suited for a higher density residential development.

By comparison, mixed-use neighborhood would more likely result in lower density townhomes or condominium projects.

The table here on the slide illustrates the unit yield comparison of these sites under different land use designations.

This slide shows recently approved or projects under construction with mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use commercial or UR designations.

Mixed-use commercial or mixed-use neighborhood projects generally produce half of the units that we see on based on compared to urban residential sites.

This reinforces staff's recommendation that urban residential is better suited on these limited in-field opportunity sites.

For the Alumeda corridor between I and District 880 and Pershing Avenue, staff conducted a site-by-side analysis of 73 parcels with the neighborhood community commercial designation.

Outlined in the black on the map and one site with the public quasi-public land use along the same corridor.

The analysis showed that the Alomeda corridor consists primarily of older office uses with low vacancy and significant historic resources, limiting residential infill opportunities.

Staff is proposing change to two sites.

For 1860, the Alumeda, the two sites are shown with red borders here on the right-hand side map.

For 1860, the Alumeda, which is the Rose Garden Inn, has an attached restaurant at the front, proposed to change to urban residential designation.

And for 1541, the Alomeda, which is YMCA with a large surface parking lot and a public quasi-public land use designation.

Staff is recommending changing the land use designation of only the parking lot portion of the site to urban residential.

For targeted journal plan amendments, staff also evaluated sites with the mixed-use commercial designation as candidates for redesignation, as well as some sites initially reviewed as part of SP 1333 rezoning process.

The mixed-use commercial designation was originally intended to support mixed-use development with a strong commercial component.

Since then, market conditions and housing policies have made those projects less feasible.

So staff evaluated whether some MEC sites are better suited for residential or more flexible mixed-use designations.

After evaluating these sites, staff identified that many MUC sites continue to provide important neighborhood-serving commercial functions within active commercial corridors, and they also exhibit low retail vacancies and strong commercial demand.

Staff is recommending a site-specific analysis using a proposed set of criteria to identify sites with varying levels of opportunity or constraint for residential conversion or stronger commercial preservation.

And lastly, as part of SP 1333 mandated rezoning effort, staff identified a list of sites for potential journal plan designation changes to better align with existing conditions.

Staff proposes to evaluate these parcels based on surrounding land uses, current and historic uses, parcel size, redevelopment potential, and broader policy context, and to recommend journal plan changes to selected sites as appropriate.

So these slides, the next two slides, they show the complete list of recommendations for residential capacity section.

A1 and two here.

They are recommendations regarding overall density and or height changes in mixed-use neighborhood and urban residential designations.

A3 is recommendation for the Winchester Boulevard sites.

A4 is recommendations about the Alumeda sites.

A5 is about the MUC sites, and A6 is about the SP 1333 parcels.

That concludes this portion, and I'm going to hand over to Jared for the next portion.

Thanks, Angita.

Jared Ferguson.

Good evening, commissioners.

So I will be discussing public quasi-public plans.

So first some background and context.

During the task force process.

We discussed the importance of preserving PQP land as a distinct land use category that supports public uses such as schools, colleges, utilities, and faith-based uses, among others.

To that end, the general plan includes land use policy 1.9 or LU-1.9, and the purpose is to preserve existing PQP land to maintain an inventory of suitable sites for private community gathering facilities within neighborhoods, urban villages, and commercial areas.

We also discussed the importance of third spaces that separate that are separate from home and work, and that maintaining an inventory of these types of sites is important for a livable walkable community.

We also covered the composition of PQP land.

PQP land makes up about 15% of developable land within the city.

There are just over 6,700 acres of it across the city.

About 45% is public schools, 2.4% is university or college lands, 7% are faith-based uses, 40% are government, and then 4.5% make up the other categories there.

Then we also provided some specific examples of PQP throughout the city, including the Kaiser Hospital in South San Jose, the YMCA in District 8, and then some other utility serving lands in District 1.

The way in which PQP fills in open space and park deficient gaps is another aspect we highlighted to show how PQP land further serves the community.

Public access and utilization of school sites varies greatly throughout the city depending on the school district, but the city does have joint use agreements for public access to at least 44 school spaces throughout the city.

This is just one example in West San Jose along Saratoga Avenue.

This shows the areas outside of the area, the areas outside of the green bubbles are those that are not within a quarter mile of a park or public space, and then the purple are those PQP sites that are outside of those green areas.

Given the uncertainty around SB 79 and the amount of land effectively converted through this new law, staff had initially recommended a cautious approach and did not recommend changes until seeing the impacts of SB 79.

That being said, staff acknowledges the rapidly changing demographics impacting schools throughout the city.

Given these shifts, there is likely a surplus of PQP land.

However, in order to preserve a suitable inventory of public and private community serving uses, we recommend a nuanced approach rather than a wholesale change to the PQP land use designation.

Blanket allowance of additional residential uses, especially given the current state law landscape, will fundamentally undermine the purpose of maintaining a distinct and separate land use designation for public uses.

Staff recommends developing a framework in which the city could consider certain land use changes as as on PQP sites while maintaining consistency with general plan policy LU-1.9.

The PQP framework approach would define and consider the following developing criteria to determine the appropriate amount and distribution of PQP land andor sites throughout the city based on demographic, economic and other data.

And to evaluate those requests and changes in land use based on the framework criteria to unlock potential housing potential on certain sites while ensuring that adequate community space exists throughout the city.

Additionally, I wanted to add that as a part of this work, staff is also open to evaluating if there are any other public uses not already allowed in the PQP zoning district that should be that could we could modify in the zoning ordinance.

Okay, so now shifting to urban village planning.

Focusing on jobs and housing growth in urban villages is a major strategy of the general plan, but for many reasons, including funding and staff capacity, the pace of urban village planning has been slow.

For this reason, our housing element contains strategy P-40 to evaluate the urban village planning process for potential streamlining.

This includes looking at whether to maintain all of the urban villages, whether new approaches to planning should be used, ways to consolidate the planning process, and also evaluating the effectiveness of the various urban village plan components.

The most significant changes staff is recommending are to the local transit urban villages, which are located along light rail corridors.

First, in order to reduce the number of plans required, we're recommending consolidating the 12 local transit villages into four plans.

Each plan would encompass those urban villages along a specific transit corridor.

Then, because SB 79 will allow high density housing on commercial properties in these urban villages, which is one of the primary purposes of the urban village plans.

At least until we can see how the impacts of SB 79 play out.

And finally, we recommend applying a commercial overlay in these villages.

The commercial overlay would create more capacity for jobs in the local transit urban villages to complement the new housing capacity brought by SB 79.

The overlay could include higher floor area ratios and height than currently allowed by the general plan and zoning district in these urban villages.

And while the initial focus of the overlay would be these unplanned local transit villages, the city could consider applying it more broadly to other urban villages in the future as well.

With planning for local transit villages deferred, the priority would be developing urban village plans for the commercial corridor and center urban villages.

In addition to the four existing urban villages, staff recommends moving four villages into this category because we believe they merit a comprehensive plan.

This includes two Oak Ridge Mall urban villages, which are partly affected by SB 79.

Finally, for the remaining unplanned neighborhood urban villages, the recommendation is to utilize a single planning process to make targeted land use and zoning changes rather than developing full comprehensive plans for each of these urban villages.

So to summarize, here are the recommendations for urban village planning.

Remove the last unplanned regional transit urban village since it is largely built out and has a planned development zoning.

Consolidate the local transit urban villages into four plans, defer planned development for these, and draft a commercial overlay to provide incentives for job growth to complement the SB 79 changes.

The eight commercial corridor and center urban villages would be the top priority in terms of urban village planning in the coming years.

We're also recommending the elimination of individual plans for the neighborhood urban villages and instead using a single process for land use and zoning changes to encourage growth.

To standardize the outreach strategy for the urban villages that will undergo a traditional planning process, minimize the unique development and design standards in future urban village plans to cut down on the time needed to create those standards and draft plans.

And finally, we're also recommending removing the three mobile home parks from unplanned urban villages to be consistent with the city's other preservation policy policies around mobile home parks.

Yeah, no, it's band over to you there.

So I will pass it over to Cora now.

Thanks, Jared.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Cora McNaughton here to present on the recommendations for small multifamily housing as part of our general plan four-year review recommendations.

So to provide some context for the work on small multifamily housing, which we also have referred to as missing middle housing, we go back to strategy P35 of the housing element.

Through this strategy, the city has committed to allowing small multifamily projects in single-family neighborhoods either as a buffer around urban villages or more broadly throughout the city.

And as we have discussed with the task force staff's recommendation is to go broader than the urban villages by allowing up to 32 units per acre on most properties within the residential neighborhood land use designation.

Residential neighborhood encompasses more than 80% of all land designated for residential development in the city.

So this table, which you've seen before, shows the breakdown of residential neighborhood parcels by area.

84% of all residential neighborhood parcels are between 3,000 and 8,000 square feet in area.

And within this range and counting both primary units and potential ADUs, a total of four to 12 units would be permitted.

This is without taking into consideration any potential development standards, which the city could use to control the scale and massing of small multifamily projects.

So there are a number of these different types of standards that the city could use for that purpose.

These include maximum height, minimum setbacks from property lines, maximum floor area, maximum parcel coverage by buildings, as well as maximum parcel size and others.

In addition, the city could implement design standards for things like window placement or other aspects of a building's appearance.

In terms of permitting for small multifamily projects, staff is recommending a ministerial process that would apply to most projects and would not require a public hearing.

Projects that are proposed on certain categories of sites would need discretionary review.

That would include properties in higher-risk flood zones, riparian areas, as well as historic properties, just to name a few.

Finally, some properties would be deemed ineligible for greater density.

Those include properties in high and very high fire severity zones, airport safety zones, environmentally sensitive areas, as well as sites with either rent stabilized or rent regulated units or with units occupied by low-income tenants.

So again, here's a summary of our recommendations.

The general or base recommendation is to increase the density in the residential neighborhood land use designation to 32 units per acre.

Staff would develop a set of standards for these projects for consideration by the planning commission and city council.

At this time, staff is supporting a height maximum of 35 feet and three stories, but more work is needed to determine the impact of other development standards on project feasibility as well as on surrounding properties.

Additional standards could also be implemented for projects located on historic properties.

So as mentioned, some properties would not be eligible for the increased density due to health and safety concerns on these sites.

I've listed those before, and then finally, approval of small multifamily projects would be ministerial in most cases, but discretionary for specific types of properties.

Thank you.

So I will quickly walk us through next steps.

One of staff's next steps will be to begin environmental review this summer with support from an environmental consultant.

Following tonight's action, staff will present planning commission's recommendation to the city council on August 18th, 2026.

City Council will then vote on how staff should proceed with this policy framework.

Staff will continue topic-specific outreach, like, for example, missing middle development standards throughout the year, throughout next year, 2027.

And lastly, staff's final recommendations will be presented to the planning commission and city council in December 2027.

This concludes staff's presentation.

All right, Steph, thank you for that presentation.

Okay.

Next is public comment.

All right.

Here we go.

All right, so if I call your name, please come down.

We'll try to do three or four at a time.

Come down to the microphone, state your name, and you have two minutes.

So we will start out with uh Michelle, Liana Oli, and Ken Hiddleman.

Hello, I'm Michelle.

Umry residents are not all homeowners and in the 50 plus age range, although that may be true of the faces that you saw at the June 3rd meeting and tonight.

Quarry neighborhood includes apartment dwellers, young adults living with their parents, multi-generational families, renters of houses, renters of ADUs, we have many ADUs, renters of rooms inside houses, and more.

We have children of all ages.

Corry neighborhood has frequent older adult and disabled pedestrians at the intersections of Heading and Winchester and Forest and Winchester from adjacent neighborhoods, including from Valley Village Retirement Community, from apartments behind the Walgreens, and from apartments in the Agrahood.

Pedestrian safety for these individuals would be negatively impacted by the increased traffic congestions this proposal would cause.

Original houses in Quarry neighborhood were built modestly, with many of the homes still small and many multi-generational families in Corrie.

There are often more than two cars per household and residents using their garages for purposes other than their cars.

Plus, the preponderance of ADUs brings additional cars that need to park in the neighborhood.

My point here is that many quarry neighborhood residents use street parking and already have difficulty doing so in the zone between heading and forest, which has been terribly impacted by overflow parking from Valley Fairs since they began charging for parking.

This proposal will have an outcome of converting successful businesses to pure residential, which contradicts San Jose's goal of preserving the business tax base and employment opportunities.

Cory residents value and patronize these businesses.

I care about the current and future residents of Cory, and I care about the businesses along Forest and Winchester, how they contribute to the quality of life and the tax revenue and jobs they bring to the city.

Rezoning to anything other than mixed-use neighborhood would have serious negative consequences for the neighborhood.

It is not smart planning and cannot be justified with the arguments that have been presented.

Thank you.

This is a scattershot approach and not a plan.

The idea is that individual landowners may decide to convert to housing or not to decide.

And that this will all take place over a number of decades.

This is hardly the way to meet the state deadlines for housing.

Our greatest objection is that once this rezoning is done, it cannot be undone.

Urban residential is the most extreme of the three options available.

We accept the idea that the city needs housing, that the parcels at 600 North Winchester and 826 North Winchester are vacant and cry out for the land to be well used.

We advocate for mixed-use neighborhood in our area.

Thank you.

All right, next we'll have Kelly McDonough, Lisa Miller, and Robert Wood.

Hi, I'm Kelly McDonough.

San Jose has a long history of very thoughtful planning.

In filling rather than sprawl, densifying at transit hubs.

I have a house in the quarry neighborhood.

I've tried using public transportation in and out of the neighborhood.

It's almost non-existent.

You'd be better off walking in most cases than you would be trying to get a bus, which is really the only public transportation you're going to find in the neighborhood.

I'd invite any of you to come to the neighborhood and try, try the bus system.

You're just you're just not going to get anywhere very fast.

Because of this, changing the zoning in the Winchester Boulevard corridor will lead to traffic and pedestrian dangers.

It's contrary to San Jose's vision zero, which is uh vision to make pedestrian use safer.

Um please let's stick to densifying near transit hubs like light rail, uh, BART, and Caltrain.

Thank you.

Cory residents are not against additional housing.

We are just advocating for additional housing that fits with the character of the neighborhood and does not destroy it.

Mixed-use neighborhood zoning would provide additional units while preserving livability for both the additional and existing residents.

The proposed changes to MUN would allow four to five stories and a base density of 50 dwelling units per acre.

Under the state density bonus law, densities could be doubled to 100 dwelling units per acre.

This is plenty of growth opportunity in the Winchester corridor and could be increased later.

Once it's increased, it can't be decreased, as has been mentioned.

A zone of urban residential will allow a base density of 95 dwelling units per acre, which could be doubled to 190.

This is way too much density for this area, and the increased traffic would be overwhelming and exacerbates the already existing parking problems as it is right next to Valley Fair.

The new slides that were presented tonight comparing uh MUN and uh urban residential showed examples with only 45 to 55 dwelling units.

That's not the 95 to 190.

The 45 to 55 is actually within the MUN.

Cars will be required by the hundreds of new residents per building of added density in the zone.

The claims that cars will not be needed for these new residents is ludicrous.

There are no grocery stores in walkable distance.

The safe way closed in 2023.

One cannot go grocery shopping at a reasonable budget in Valley Fair or in Santana Row.

And the claimed Valley Fair Transit Center on Ford is closed in 2021.

The new residents will also need cars to commute to their jobs.

Buildings with an adequate parking ships do not work.

Look at the Faye and other struggling sites.

Recently in the news, rejecting UR zoning does not mean no growth.

It is not a binary decision between outrageous growth or no growth.

Please support reasonable growth.

MUN zoning.

No other neighborhood has been targeted with these continued attacks on their ability to maintain their character and to survive as a livable community.

It is not fair and should be reined in.

Thank you very much.

I'm Robert Wood.

I'm Chair of the Housing Committee of the California Faculty Association, San Jose State chapter.

And as you know, we are in favor of a serious reevaluation of the general plan to make it possible to build more housing than the current proposals will include.

We think that the general plan itself calls for a major revision every four years.

That's the word in the plan.

It feels like several steps that are really needed have not been adequately considered in this review.

The first would be proper rethinking of the growth areas, which were supposed to produce 170,000 units and are producing very few.

Secondly, some housing in the 100 square miles plus that where all housing is prohibited.

City planning said it was going to work on that, but nothing has happened.

And third, the allowing appropriate amounts of housing in the PQP areas.

These seem not to have been included in the plan so far, and we hope that you'll find a way to um enable these things to happen.

We need housing, and not enough has been done in this plan to make space for it.

Thank you.

All right.

Coming up, we'll have Greg Carlson, Alison Siglioni, and Teresa Dough.

I support more housing and more density, but I want to limit buildings on the Winchester corridor to 45 stories, just like the current structures that are there.

Please don't maximize density on the backs of people of we the people of the Cory neighborhood.

Thank you.

Good evening, Alison Cingalani, Director of Policy with SV at Home.

We submitted a letter earlier today signed by leaders from school districts, faith congregations, housing, and community-based organizations, expressing our strong support for expanding the allowable permitted uses on school and faith lands, designated PQP as part of the General Plan 4-year review.

We oppose an approach that would limit the expansion of allowable community serving uses to some sites, but not others, as we believe this could unintentionally interfere with the difficult decisions school districts and faith congregations must make in close partnership with their communities.

It would also create equity impacts as options available to one school district community or faith congregation may not be available to another.

Finally, an uneven approach is likely to accelerate the loss of PQP sites to non-community uses as school districts and faith congregate communities that lack the resources to navigate a lengthy and uncertain approval process may be forced to sell their land outright rather than retain ownership and redevelop it in ways that both strengthen their long-term financial sustainability and continue to serve the community.

Some of the desired community serving uses not allowed at all under current PQP include but are not limited to 100% affordable housing, public workforce housing, a commercial kitchen to support small home-based food entrepreneurs, and small neighborhoods serving retail.

Desired uses that require a special use permit, currently adding 591 days to the permitting process, include but are not limited to a daycare center, social services agency, medical clinic, certified farmers market, vocational school, gym, or community theater.

Housing for school districts' own workforce is permitted only because state law now overrides our general plan.

San Jose's average school site at nearly 10 acres is large enough to hold a school, housing, and additional community serving uses.

That very configuration is winding its way through negotiations right now in Alamark Union School District.

Citywide expansion of allowable permitted uses.

And Lori Androste also.

Not yet.

Wait till the light turns red.

Oh, let me look out.

Hello?

Yeah.

Good evening, Commissioners.

On behalf of uh my name's Teresa Doe.

I speak on behalf of San Jose Yemby.

On behalf of over 1,000 members of San Jose Yemby, we appreciate the analysis led by the planning department tax force to unlock more housing capacity in the city.

We know San Jose is a wonderful place to live, but housing has become increasingly unaffordable and it's unsustainable to continue this way.

Reassessing our public quasi public lands and increasing density and mixed use in residential neighborhoods are necessary steps the city must take to support its existing population and build new phone new homes for new families.

We urge the commission to adopt adopt staff's recommendation to increase density in the identified neighborhoods as it'll permit new families to live in these areas, such as teachers, healthcare workers, and young families.

Let's build more housing for more families.

Thank you.

I'm Greg Carlson with Concerned Cory Neighbors, and uh appreciate the difficulty that you're all going through, and there's just decisions you have to make.

Um I did submit a proposal for a uh development along the Winchester corridor that I thought would provide not only for housing but improve the neighborhoods and create neighborhoods and allow for uh greater safety for senior facilities, churches, uh etc.

Um I guess uh there's a uh now a greater percentage of uh of uh urban residential now that's showing up on the map, and I'm not sure why, but uh there's great consideration appears given for the Alameda Corridor, which is closer to downtown San Jose and their businesses.

But um, I just want to put in my pitch again for uh Mixus neighborhood for the Winchester Corridor and A26 North Winchester.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Lori Drosti.

I'm the housing and planning director at Spur.

My comments are focused on missing middle housing.

I first want to thank you as the task force and staff for your thoughtful work.

Establishing a more ambitious missing middle housing framework through the general plan is a major step towards addressing San Jose's housing shortage.

San Jose's affordability crisis is pushing families, teachers, nurses, and young professionals out of the city.

We strongly support making this a citywide strategy, including in high opportunity neighborhoods that have historically seen little growth.

The neighborhood where a child grows up should not determine the opportunities available to them.

At the last meeting, Commissioner Cow looked at his wife and child in the audience and said, I have no shot at affording a home here.

That moment really stayed with me because that's exactly what this discussion is about.

Missing middle housing creates homes that are more attainable than the increasingly common two million dollars single family home while requiring far less public subsidy.

It gives more families the opportunity to build a future in San Jose.

We appreciate staff's recommendation of 32 dwelling units per acre.

It's a significant improvement over today's zoning, and we encourage the city to continue exploring opportunities for additional density where appropriate to improve project feasibility.

We also strongly support allowing the market, not artificial parking mandates to determine parking needs.

Allowing the market to determine doesn't mean no parking.

It simply means not requiring parking where it is not needed or wanted.

Unnecessary parking requirements increase housing costs, consume valuable land, and make projects harder to build.

Thank you for your leadership, and we respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak?

Please come down at this time.

Please state your name also.

Hello, my name is Benjamin White.

I live in the Winchester Corridor area.

And I am mindful of the fact that San Jose needs to bring 30,000 new housing units online in the not too distant future.

But I'm also concerned about the character of our neighborhood and the quality of life there.

And too many uh high-rise buildings uh showing up uh in our neighborhood.

Uh and that's why I'm reiterating uh previous comments calling for mixed use neighborhood as the best compromise in our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh and thank you for allowing me to have a brief word here.

My name is Harte Suamela.

I live in Santa Clara just next door to Cory neighborhood, and I have to echo the concerns raised by many of the uh Corey neighborhood uh residents in this meeting about the parking uh problems with which these plans will be creating the non-existing local transportation.

I've tried to use the local transportation for my daily commute.

It doesn't work reliably enough for me to be able to do it so that that doesn't support the uh amount of new people which the uh plans uh presented here will bring and also uh the uh lack of grocery options in the neighborhood means that people are driving more uh than plans are really counting for, so there will be more cars in the residence because of these plans.

So I urge you to come up with a little bit less uh dramatic expansion of the housing and uh housing amounts in the Winchester area.

Uh sorry, I've been talking about the Winchester corridor, and uh I understand that there is more need for housing, but it kind of come uh with the cost of all these existing uh residents in the Cory neighborhood and the close-by neighborhood.

Thank you.

All right, any other public comment?

Nothing from VTA.

Okay.

All right, then we'll move on to the commissioners.

Uh let's see.

Commissioner Casey, do you have something to say about the process or general comment or question?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh so a couple things.

Um, first uh I guess more of a statement where I stand on the PQP uh portion of it, hearing all the different um opinions and and from staff as well.

Just want to go on record.

I support the proposal from city planning to look at it in a methodical way.

I think it's important that the PQP uh land across the city um is evenly distributed, so all communities maintain uh an appropriate level of PQP lands.

I understand that certain school districts and face-based organizations and others are in dire straits, but I think the greater good of the community, the city I think overrides the individual um organizations in that case.

Um I do believe we should open them up.

I do believe we probably do have an excess of it, definitely because of school populations, declining church attendance, etc.

Um, but I think it should be done in a methodical manner.

Uh I had a question for staff about uh the Winchester Corridor.

Um, and I have I have walked it a couple of times and going through.

I understand the urban residential from forest um over to uh Fernwood, but the addition of 826 North Winchester, it's discontinuous with the other urban residential properties, and around it we have uh neighborhood community commercial and others.

What if we could touch a little bit more on that particular property and why that was included when it's not connected to the other group that is closer to Valley Fair and on the corner there?

Um, sure.

Um Commissioner, um so one of the reasons that this um 826 was uh selected as uh proposed for urban residential is the fact that it is currently um underutilized and vacant um while staff was not supportive of their general plan amendment initially, um, going to early consideration and hearing, um I think planning commission and also city council having us take another look at the site and consider possibly a less a lesser dense designation.

I believe they were going for transit residential.

Um and so the other two options would have been urban residential and mixed use neighborhood, and we've sort of explained why we're not supportive of mixed use neighborhood.

But again, this one is um underutilized.

Um it's currently uh building um the there is a building on site, but there are no tenants on there, so and there's interest in redeveloping it.

Thank you.

Um and I guess just a note uh after visiting the site a couple times or walking the area, um I mean when it comes down to however we're doing the proposals or saying yay or nay, I'm comfortable with the rest being urban residential, but not A26.

I think it should be pulled out if there's some way at least for that when we get to the voting on proposals, etc.

Um a question for staff as well.

Uh in terms of parking, obviously we've heard that extensively.

I'm familiar with the FAA, and hopefully developers take a look at Faye and understand not having you know the parking is is not going to work.

San Jose hasn't had a parking requirement for years now.

Um, and so but most developments still have parking, and certainly if if but not if we know the chat parking is challenging there already.

So developers are not going to be able to build, you know, an eight-story building without having at least some adequate parking and in your own record.

You mentioned 1.6 is typically how many parking spaces are adding for units at this point.

But getting to that, is there a reason we cannot do permit parking in the quarry neighborhood?

Is that something that we don't do any longer?

The neighbors are not uh in favor of, or how is there ways to manage that?

Because certainly even Valley Fair parking should not be consuming the neighborhood.

Uh yeah, thanks, Commissioner.

We could probably spend a lot of time talking about uh residential permit parking, but I do know a little bit of background about it.

Um we've looked at it in other areas, something um along Winchester further south that was looked at up through a pilot program.

Um, you know, it's typically not something the city's looking to expand right now just on a practical sense because of the um increased costs that it is to in terms of enforcement and other things.

Um there are also other policy considerations as well.

Um it's you know, typically for something like a valley fair use, that is something we could look, you know, would potentially be considered for a parking permit program where you have this kind of use case where there's a uh a large regional generator of you know uh traffic, so like a stadium is a good example of where you might have permit um uh parking around that, so like around our SAP center, there are permit parking programs now.

When it comes to increased demand based upon new residents, that's not usually somewhere where we're looking to utilize a parking permit program, typically the residents would also be eligible to park on the streets around where they live.

Um, so it doesn't necessarily manage um the parking in that way.

Um so it's it's um so there's different reasons as to why you'd look at parking permit programs if it were something that we were looking to expand upon through our DOT.

Um, but in terms of uh how it applies to residential, that can be complicated just because those are also you know residents in the community as well.

So thank you.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Casey.

Okay, I think we're gonna have to have a little bit of structure to how we're going to discuss all these items because we have four sections, and each section has something like four or five subsections within it, and each subsection has about some of them have four or five subsections within those.

So how about we start with residential capacity, section one, and we can that contains two sections.

So we have resident, increasing residential capacities, includes Winchester Boulevard corridor, and the next part of section one is public quasi-public lands.

Um how about we just start with uh comments or questions related to residential, the first part of that, so one A.

And uh if if I could too, I we have slides with the recommendations we could put up while you're talking about each section too to make it a little bit easier, and if there are pieces that we want to talk about, we have that set up.

So if you just give me one second, I can pull that up.

Would be wonderful.

And this way we can sort of focus on the parts that are important to folks and segregate them.

Wait, Cherry, can I ask just a really quick question?

Go ahead.

Uh for Commissioner Casey, uh you mentioned that there was one project that you didn't want to see go urban residential.

Which one was that again?

Just real quick.

Uh 826, Winchester.

Just disjointed from the others.

Thank you.

It's one A three.

Yes, right.

Well, you're talking in the agenda.

Oh, here.

Yes, yeah.

And it's one A three, but a specific portion of one.

Yes.

Well, yeah, there's like 10, but yes.

Make sure you're speaking into the microphone.

Sorry, could we have the diagram for the Winchester, the side by side?

Yeah, let me pull that up.

Alright, we're good.

Do you want to do you want to go?

We could start with just one A.

Um all right, Commissioner Young.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I'd I'd like to discuss uh one B, but if if we just you know need to get to that, that's fine.

But uh I would like to have some discussion about public quasi-public lands.

Let's start with one A first and then we'll come back.

Sounds good.

Uh anybody for one a cow can't truly.

Thank you, actually.

Um so on the the issue of um urban residential in uh Winchester community.

Um I think the opposition is quite honestly fair.

Um I think um we're moving in the right direction.

And with this small, these very small couple parcels really, um it would help a little bit, but I don't think with density bonus it changes enough um that it matters to be completely honest with you.

Um I think when when the community came forward and were more than willing to adjust uh to compensate more housing in their community, it's a far cry more than most, and I I think we should maybe respect that.

Um I think also that the impact uh that we get from just going with uh mixed use i is a sufficient first step.

Maybe we don't have to boil the ocean.

Uh I will, however, make one recommendation to the community, a marketing term probably.

I would not use character of my community.

Um that is kind of uh a dog whistle from someone else just saying uh but otherwise uh I would support the community's interest and on that one.

Thanks.

Um, what's that?

M U N.

M U N.

Yes.

Yes, mixed use neighborhood.

Yeah.

Um Commissioner Olivario, did you have something about one A?

Yeah.

Yes.

Uh overall, I just would like a systematic way that we do this, that we have the PowerPoint up, and we as much as someone wants to talk about something else, gotta stay on the one in front of us so that we're on the same page and whoever's watching the meetings on the same page.

I just think that'd be nice and clean.

Um would you like the way we're doing it or?

Well, I'm just saying I want to s if we're gonna go with the staff presentation or follow this agenda, then I want to start specifically with 1A and not go to 1A3.

I mean, I mean I just want I I want, I don't mind if we have 32 votes.

I'd rather be very specific in what we're doing rather than you know, large encompassing motions where there's disagreement which end up being longer discussions.

Okay, so we we can go to 1A1A two one a three.

Yeah, like for example, uh I would say let's just vote on one A I.

One A I I I, you know, and and just just go down that and let and let's limit everyone speaking to one or two minutes so there's no major speeches, and we just keep going down the list.

I'm happy to do it any other way.

That's just my suggestion.

And I mean that that works fine.

Is does anybody have anything to say about one AI or possibly could we do if we do it by one well lowercase I's as opposed to lowercase ABCs?

In the spirit of what was just said, perhaps we can just do by letter A, B, A, B, C, A, B, C, D, as opposed to small I, easiest.

Small, small double I, so on and so forth.

But again, maybe we do need to go down to the details.

I think to the extent that there's an opportunity to consolidate, then it would be the commission to do so.

So if there are, I think you know, the opportunity to have the conversation by letter, so going 1A, and if there are specific items within that that need to be pulled, then that could be bifurcated out.

But uh I think it'll take a fair amount of time if you're gonna go through every single individual item.

Okay, may I make a proposal?

Um, sure.

1A.

I think we can if if we remove item three for comment.

I I believe that we can then vote on everything else in 1A.

Is everybody good with that?

I believe so.

All right.

Um so let's vote on 1A and 1, or sorry, 1A Romanette I and run 1A Romanette I.

And four and six.

I think you'll need a motion first.

Yeah, we'll have a motion.

Can you repeat that because I will I can't hear you, Commissioner?

Uh you need to speak more into the mic.

I can't hear.

I will make a motion that we vote on one A.

Item I, two I, four I, five I, and six I, that we remove item three for additional discussion and a separate vote.

So the the motion would be to adopt staff's recommended actions for those.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second, okay.

Let's roll call vote.

Vice Chair Vicker.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal.

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Esquar?

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Yes.

Commissioner Olivero.

No, and I'd love an opportunity to share why I'm voting that way.

That maybe having comment after or before the vote.

Comment after works.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Myself is a yes.

And the motion passes.

So that is for 1A.

Everything but 1A.

I, I, I.

Commissioner Overio.

Yeah, my main reason for the no vote is having to do with the 32 units to the acre in uh residential neighborhoods.

Um overall, this is something that the feedback from actual neighborhood residents, not interest groups, is not in favor of such am I talking wrong about the wrong item, Jared.

You're looking like there's an internal discussion.

It's actually our i it's not part of this motion.

It would be under small multifamily.

Yeah, thirty-two is section two.

That's why I like the PowerPoint.

Alright.

So then, if with this being said, this is just the uh densifications of the existing zonings.

I can uh support that.

This yes, this is only for M U N and UR.

I'm gonna reconsider my no vote and uh vote yes.

Thank you.

All right, all right, passes unanimously.

All right, on to 1A3, the Winchester Corridor.

Comments from comments, questions from who's the second one, second was Cal.

Okay, one A3 comments, questions from commissioners on the Winchester Corridor.

Already Commissioner Cantrell suggested M U N.

Commissioner Urbick.

Second.

I'd just like to know first if Commissioner Cantrell is gonna make uh motion about what to do with the number three.

Okay, yes, that works now.

Okay, I motion that we actually approve uh MUN instead of um urban residential in this area.

Second.

Wait, now I'm confused because you earlier said you wanted to remove well.

I guess it was Commissioner Casey that wanted to remove.

I wanted to remove 826, but I thought you wanted it to MUN.

But you just propose that the motion that we approve it as urban residential.

No neighborhood mixed use.

Sorry.

You're looking for the lower density one, yeah.

Okay, so it's it's mixed-use neighborhood.

Could you actually make the motion though for mixed use neighbors?

I misfired on that, I guess.

Um I recommend that it all be uh zoned as uh neighborhood mixed use.

They're trying to help you.

They're trying to help you.

All right.

Okay.

Commissioner.

Do we have a second?

Okay, so this is uh, so we have already voted on everything under 1A other than 1A Romanette 3.

So Romanette 3 is the Winchester Boulevard corridor.

So we're voting on that separately from the things under 1A.

I understand that, but I'm not here.

Is there a motion on the floor?

Commissioner, Cantrell just made a motion.

Did somebody second it?

Commissioner Alvario made a second it and it was to not modify the general plan is already at NUN.

Yeah, could we clarify?

Is it to modify everything we're proposing to UR to M U N, urban residential to N U N, or just on the specific site of 826 Winchester?

Okay, everything that's proposed to be urban residential would be mixed-use neighborhood.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, to modify it to mixed M U N mixed use neighborhood.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna just make a substitute motion that we approve the staff recommendation on one A3.

Okay, do we have a second for the substitute motion?

Second.

Do we have a second?

Okay.

Commissioner Bandal.

Yeah, thank you.

Um first of all, uh thank you for navigating this chair as as uh you didn't a good job.

Um, this is uh one of our first uh general plan meetings is my first general plan uh summary meeting in the last meeting, so it is kind of complicated, but uh, I'm following along as best as I could.

So just want to give a quick shout out to uh staff for doing an amazing job thus far.

We've started this process back in October, and you guys have done a phenomenal job.

And thank you to all the residents that's been showing up.

Not just today, but since October, and I appreciate you guys coming out and spending your time with us.

Just want to quickly uh not take too much time, but quickly bring up 826 Winchester.

Um I do uh think that urban residential is a little bit too much a density for that area.

This was a something that came up for early consideration uh in the past.

Am I correct, Steph?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, yeah, at that time I think it was a valuation was about for 17 floors.

Yes, they were coming in with transit residential, yeah.

So I think I thought that was a little bit too high.

I've done my research for this specific site in the past, and I don't support it too much.

I think there'll be a lot of spillover towards the uh for the resident residents, and I appreciate the Corey neighborhood group coming out to our events and uh but for all the other uh sites I I would support urban residential.

I think there's one right next to Valley Fair.

I think that one makes a little bit more sense.

But the 826 one specifically I don't support.

I would go with the M U N.

So I'll make a motion to say well, can I just can you make a friendly amendment to that to Commissioner Young's moment motion to see if he approves of that friendly amendment and the seconder also approves first before you make another substitute motion?

Commissioner Young, would you accept a friendly amendment for just 826 being M UN and the rest being urban residential?

Okay, any other anyone else before we take a vote on the substitute motion?

I was gonna say, if Commissioner Von Dahl wants to make a a third you can make maybe one more substitute motion before we get too attenuated and then we'll we'll call it.

So if you want to make a substitute motion, another, then after that.

So I'll make a substitute motion for uh staffs staff's recommendation for one A3, excluding 826 Winchester, and having that uh instead of being urban residential be M U N.

Second.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, so I just want to clarify that we have the original motion, which was Commissioner Kentrell's motion, and then we had a substitute motion, which was Commissioner Young's motion to adopt the staff recommendation, and now we have another substitute motion, which is to adopt staff recommendation except for 826 Winchester.

We're gonna take a vote on that.

If that fails, we go to Commissioner Young's motion to for a vote.

And if that fails, we go to Commissioner Kentrell's motion.

Everybody understand?

Okay.

Can we have discussion?

Yeah, of course.

Commissioner Young.

Thank you, Chair, for navigating this process.

It's really challenging, I understand.

Um first of all, I want to say thank you to the core neighbors uh in your participation throughout this process.

I think you have been far and beyond the neighborhood that's most participated in the process, and we appreciate that.

And I understand your your heartfelt feelings.

Um the other hand, the Winchester Boulevard corridor is um a corridor which is very conducive to adding more housing.

And um, because of the housing crisis situation that we're in, I think we need to um expand that housing as much as possible.

Our planning staff has spent hours and hours and probably days and days looking at each of these parcels and using their best professional judgment as to what should be done on each parcel.

And I respect that.

I I don't think it's our place as commissioners to start piecemealing this process.

I think that um, you know, our recommendations are gonna go to the city council and ultimately they're gonna decide.

But I really would rather avoid piecemealing things here.

I I'd like to uh just respect our staff, so that's that's why I uh uh I would support the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Bickford.

I have a slightly different perspective in with all due respect, Mike.

I I think that um our responsibility is to look at the the streets and the neighborhoods, and to understand both what's good for the residents and what's good for the city, and I think that there is a balance to be had here.

And I very much appreciate that because it helps us make a more logical decision.

Um this is a hard one because the city does need um housing, and because Winchester is a corridor where normally I would I would expect to see, frankly, um taller buildings, but I also have respect for the neighborhood, and um, so I have a slightly different opinion.

I just uh I I want to get to the vote.

Okay, Commissioner Cantrell.

You've just been called question.

Can I ask staff to bring up the map again one more time?

Yeah, just give me one second.

Okay, um, so we're we're really talking about the two the rectangle and the square.

We're taking the square out, um, in this um in the third one, correct?

And we're leaving the the rectangle with all this um right near the right across the street from the mall in, and we're actually um when you look at and I need staff's opinion on this.

If this is neighborhood mixed use, what's the maximum capacity likely with density bonuses?

Sorry, just pulling up the table.

Um if um we assume that we go with the new densities for mixed-use neighborhood, 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre.

Um there's different circumstances and situations for density bonus.

You can get unlimited density, you can get 50%, 100% depending on it.

Um if it was 50%, then it could go up to a hundred units per acre on um on a particular site.

I'm not sure what that site size is.

Do you remember?

No, maybe just under an acre.

Um, okay.

And if it's um urban residential, what would be the maximum capacity?

Um urban residential with the new changes from 50 to 95 50 to 95 dwelling units per acre.

Um, assuming it's a a one-acre site, you can get up to 95 units, and again, if you're doubling that density, it would be 200 units, depending on the type of density bonus they get.

Okay, okay.

So I I just don't think a hundred units is worse worth destroying public will.

Um I just don't I don't I don't think the value is high enough.

Um I think we we get far more out of the community um and I think this is just a bridge too far, but I respectfully say that.

I I 100 units is not gonna change the world.

Thank you.

Commissioner Barroso.

Question for Commissioner Bandal.

Um curious on why 826 stands out.

Um and it's something that you want to make an exception for.

Yeah, so looking at your mind, which which for the people watching I believe is the box, right?

The small red square on the right, yes.

Yeah, so for um so for my thinking um the rectangle is a little bit closer to the main street and pretty close to Valley Fair.

So that there I could compromise.

And and take staff recommendations, but I feel like the square is a little bit more into uh the the residential site.

So a little bit more in the it's I think it's it'll be more i if we were to pick and to carve and compensate, I would take the square being less density and the rectangle being more density, just so everybody kind of wins staff gets what they want.

The community feels like they got something from what they wanted.

So I just want to be the middleman and kind of it's my idea.

So that's the thought process behind it.

Thank you.

Is that the piece of land that VCI was talking about developing last year?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Christian Alvaro.

My request doesn't stay requesting.

So yeah, per Commissioner Cantrell's uh ending comments there.

I think when you have a community group that comes out to every single meeting, and you're like, no, um, I just don't think it's a good faith thing.

And uh I'm not saying anyone that's has an opinion is being cruel or mean, I just think it's a lack of uh, you know, openness to other ideas and an organiz and a neighborhood that is uh adjacent already to the overflow of a very, you know, one of the most successful shopping centers in the United States, and uh, you know, the urban residential, I think's just a bridge too far, and I think these uh this community has consistently engaged, and I think the only fair thing to do is that reality is you're gonna get more density, but it's not gonna be the maximum density, it's gonna be something more reasonable, and as been pointed out that the state laws allow them to go far and wide much larger, and so a different general plan can revisit this, or I'm sure maybe a state law might decide something else next week, but uh I'm gonna stay with uh Cantrell's motion because I think it's uh all those things I stated, and I think anything else is not ideal.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cow.

Talk about a complicated situation here.

First of all, I want to say thank you to administration for all of your memos and presentations for the task force review and leading up to this whopping maybe 32, I don't know the exact number of recommendations to be made to city council, but it's a lot of work and echoing uh what Commissioner Young said, yeah, definitely appreciate the immense amount of work that's gone into this.

I want to ask administration a couple questions and be responsive to the core neighbors' concerns, and just like numerous commissioners have mentioned, thank you so much for coming out virtually every single task force meeting, various planning commission meetings too.

So I hear you loud and clear and want to be responsive to some of those concerns.

So let's get to it.

The many of the quarry neighbors bring up the issue about this transit hub, and they argue the lack of a transit hub.

Can staff share some information on where we stand with that transit hub because clearly there's a difference of opinion between what the neighbors in Cory feel relative to what staff has proposed with urban residential and claiming that it's a transit hub area.

Some clarification there, I think would be very helpful for the entire commission.

Um thank you, Commissioner.

Um so the um the transit hub, as folks mentioned, was closed, I think several years ago, and uh while it's not on the VTA, I'm not sorry, near Valley Fair anymore, um, there are still bus lines that operate close enough to the site.

There's um I think it's uh 60 60 61.

Um you have two other bus lines along Stevens Creek.

So while there isn't a transit hub, there is transit um in the surrounding area and along Winchester and Stevens Creek.

Got it, thank you very much for that.

The second question I want to ask is a broader question about the state's mandate and request of the city of San Jose for housing.

There's explicit reference, um, well, actually in the presentation to the arena goals, and in the memo on page seven, you referenced that too specifically regarding the Winchester corridor.

So can staff just I know you have your position, but can staff just take a moment to further explain that because that is in contrast to what the Corey neighbors have been requesting here in terms of you know MUN instead of urban residential.

So I think it's I think it's worth making sure that we understand collectively what the planning department's recommending and why.

Sure, thank you.

So one of the major drivers, as we said before, of this general plan four-year review process was to um lay the groundwork for the next housing element, the seven-cycle housing element.

The sixth cycle housing element was a tremendous lift for San Jose, and I think cities all across the state, where our RENA goals uh were close, almost nearly doubled from the previous year.

We anticipate that we're going to have to do a very similar exercise for the seventh cycle, and what that means is identifying sites that have sufficient capacity to meet those goals, whether it's going to be 62,000, 90,000, 35,000, whatever the state sort of hands down to us, and we don't know that number, but we're operating under what we've recently experienced.

And so, given that that's sort of what's driving this effort, we are trying our best to identify places where we can grow and where we can grow really take advantage of the opportunities because we do not have new land in San Jose.

We're not going to build on our hill sites.

There's limited in built opportunities, and for us, it um the best sort of scenario for Winchester, the Alameda, and possibly some of these other mixed-use commercial or SB 1333 sites that we're going to continue analysis for is to go to urban residential.

Mixed-use neighborhood, in our opinion, will likely give us town homes and town homes along Winchester next to a major growth area, next to an area that has services and jobs and transit, doesn't seem to sort of meet that goal that we are trying to sort of bring forward and eventually bring to council and planning commission in 2027.

And so we understand the hesitation.

You know, there is, you know, folks that are supportive of housing, and there's this sort of back and forth with mixed-use neighborhood, people can use density bonus.

We don't see folks using mixed um density bonus for mixed-use neighborhood projects.

Town homes will sell and townhomes will be built.

So in our opinion, it's that or dense housing to achieve those um those goals.

Thank you very much.

And that actually anticipated my next question, which would I think be responsive to Commissioner Cantrell's motion on the floor.

Um, because you had brought up that a state density bonus was going to play a factor in this, and I remember you calling that out, I think at the last task force meeting too.

And because if we do if if the if a developer does the state density bonus, then that could blow whatever um dwelling units per acre through the roof.

But what I just heard um you say, Ruth, was that it's unlikely you said that MUN would have state density bonus.

What was that that you just said?

Yes, that we we typically don't see sites with MUN using um density bonus to get to go above the existing 30 dwelling units to the acre.

Got it.

Thank you very much for that explanation.

Um there's obviously a lot of differing opinions on the commission right now with three motions on the floor.

Um I'll just say that going back to some of the comments I've made in the last couple of task force meetings.

Um I know being a younger person here who cannot afford to essentially live in San Jose barely getting by.

Um, that we do need to do what we can to increase our housing capacity here, and so I appreciate administration's um recommendations, and we'll be supportive of them.

All right.

I think uh Commissioner Bandal's motion is on the floor.

Anybody second it?

Casey seconded it.

So the other ones are still on the boat pending.

Commissioner Casey first, and then Commissioner Escobar.

Thank you.

I just had one follow-up.

Um again, thank you for the Corey neighborhood.

Um I mean, showing up.

I went out there and walked the neighborhood for an hour and a half last week um to get a better sense of it.

Yes, I've been going to Valley Fair since I was a little kid, but it's changed dramatically in those years to get a better sense of it.

And I think part of the compromise, and thank you to the planning staff, at least the proposal to limit it to 85 feet or essentially eight stories.

I see those are asterisks.

Is that binding or is that a recommendation?

Because I think part of urban residential, yes, 12 stories.

I wouldn't I wouldn't necessarily um support in that location.

I looked there, I went down Bascom and stopped at the large one they did now by Southwest Expressway.

I know there's some differences there in terms of what's exactly right behind it, but so 12 stories is difficult, but the 85, 85 is difficult as well.

Is the 85 something that's binding, or that's a recommendation or so urban residential currently goes um higher than 85 feet.

Uh I'm sorry, and I'm trying to see if we what it goes up to 135.

So the asterisk are to show that we for these specific sites we will uh modify the height so that it's limited to 85 and not what's currently in the zoning code.

And that's binding, that's not just a recommendation.

Well, that's our recommendation to you and to the.

If it went all the way through, that's something that would be enforceable against development.

That is our proposal.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Escobar.

Um I'm more inclined to support Commissioner Cantrell's motion simply because uh recalling the previous project in the area that failed.

Um, knowing that uh Santa Clara Mayor Gilmore and the council member uh joining in Santa Clara Cox were not in favor of that project, and it is literally across the street.

Um that's being a good neighboring city in that particular way and seeking a compromise.

I advocate for as much as housing as possible, but I also advocate for a quality of life.

Um to say that well, yes, you've lived there for 40 years and and things will change.

Yes, they will change.

However, I don't think that things should change in a way that forces somebody who's been there forty years to move away because now their quality of life has deteriorated at the benefit of somebody else.

Um and with all due respect to Commissioner Cow and his family looking to purchase a home, I am a single person who cannot purchase a home.

I think the problem of housing that it being affordable is universal, it's not limited to a family, it's not limited to a single person.

It's it's everybody's issue, and I think that doing the best that we can to increase the amount of housing while somehow trying to maintain a version of a quality of a life for existing residents is really where I fall on this particular issue, but also the ability to work with our neighboring cities when it is literally across the street is important to me because at some point we may seek support from them or we may not, but they do factor in and they and and it is relevant in this particular case.

Um so from that perspective, um, I will be supporting Commissioner Contrell's motion.

Okay, are we ready to go to a vote?

All right, we will Commissioner Barroso.

Would you be able to restate the one that we're voting on?

Absolutely.

So thank you.

The motion on the motion that we're going to vote on first is Commissioner Bondal's, which is uh changing the designation of M U N other than 826, other than 826.

The square.

Um let me let me see if I got.

I think it's staff's recommendation except for 826, which will be to M U N and not urban residential.

I think it's opposite of that.

A twenty six would be urban residential and the rest would be M U N.

Is that right?

No, that's incorrect.

Yeah, what Daniel said, uh the city attorney said.

So it's we'll take all staff's recommendation minus 826.

Okay.

All right.

Sorry, just to clarify, and your motion is for 826 to go to mixed use neighborhood or stay neighborhood community commercial.

Uh M U N, yeah.

Mm-hmm.

If you don't mind, could you please just restate Commissioner Cantrell's motion as well?

Commissioner Cantrells was convert everything to MUN, which is not staff's recommendation.

And if if staff could bring up the table one of the proposed general plan and zoning changes, I think that'd be extremely helpful.

Shows all of the addresses, not not this, but just the addresses.

Is that possible?

Yeah, we'll just need a little bit to pull that up, though.

I have it right in front of me, but I can't.

Because looking at the current designation of each pro of each property and then the proposed designation would be helpful, just as a visual for everyone.

Until we bring that up, just a quick question for Commissioner Kentral, you wanted all M U N, even the parcel that's across the street from Valley Fair, which is the rectangle in this case.

Yes.

My understanding of your motion was that all urban residential would be M U N.

So if you look at the table and you see all the proposed designations that are listed as UR, my understanding of your motion was that you wanted all of those UR designations to be M U N instead.

Is that incorrect?

You want all the proposed designation to be M U N?

Even the uh residential neighborhood or the R N?

Oh looking at the map, the residential neighborhood units, are they on Winchester also?

Fernwood Avenue.

So up the st the street, not Winchester specifically.

Because I thought we were only speaking of Winchester here.

They are on Winchester.

These are um currently neighborhood community commercial, but they've been single family homes for decades.

And so we're just suggesting to flip it to be residential neighborhood.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um I thought it was I thought it was different.

I'm glad you you pointed that out.

Um I think that's that that should be.

I I assumed you were saying that that would be neighborhood um mixed use as well.

Um I would suggest that all be neighborhood mixed use, quite frankly, yes.

So I'm still confused as to what you're saying.

So are you saying that you want the two proposal for our for RN on Fernwood Avenue to also be M U N, or you want them to remain RN?

M U N.

Specific.

Yes, M U N.

Or Commissioner Cantrell, another way.

If if I think what you're saying is just remove all urban residential.

Yeah, in that area.

And then it's be consistent.

That's what I've been asking, but you're saying the opposite.

I'm I believe I'm asking.

I'm saying it should all be.

So for Fernwood Avenue, look at the table.

The two, the top two.

Yeah.

Those are residential properties that staff is recommending turn to residential neighborhood, R18 zoning.

You want to make those M U N, or not, or just the urban residential does proposed designations into M U N.

Okay.

All right.

Um, to be quite honest, I hadn't considered those two.

Um I'd only consider um those facing Winchester Avenue for the most part and those going up Forest Avenue.

So you can leave those as R and then the rest can be M U N.

Okay.

So that was my question.

Was all of the proposed urban residential you want to be MUN?

Correct.

And Commissioner Oliverio is the seconder, is that what you understood?

That's what I understood.

Okay.

So that is Commissioner Cantrell's motion, but the motion on the table currently to be voted on is staff's recommendation except for 826 North Winchester, which instead of UR is going to be M U N, correct?

Okay.

Are we good?

Okay.

Okay.

Let's take that to a vote.

Vice Chair Bickford.

No.

Okay.

Commissioner Barroso.

No.

Commissioner Bondal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell?

No.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

No.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Yes.

Commissioner Olivario.

No.

Commissioner Young?

No.

I am a no as well.

That's five votes out of 11.

The motion fails.

Moving on to Commissioner Young's motion.

Just wanted to say I wasn't.

I apologize, Commissioner King.

Yes, me.

Uh I'm a no.

No?

No.

Okay, that's five out of eleven.

So can I make one point briefly?

Feel free, Commissioner Young.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Ruth, I want to go back to something you said in response to Commissioner Cowley's question.

So you're saying if that 826 North Winchester was MUN.

That's what the city's experience has been.

That is our experience for MUN designations.

It would support town homes or condominiums, not dense housing.

Okay, thank you.

So I want the commissioners to understand that if you're okay building, you know, 100.

Sorry, 1,500,000 town homes in an area that could accommodate an affordable housing mid-rise.

Um you just need to think seriously about that.

I'm not in favor of that.

I don't think it's a good idea to build townhomes on Winchester Boulevard.

Okay, Commissioner Barroso.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we just voted on one and then we're gonna entertain another one.

What was the third one?

I don't think we talked about the third one.

So the third one would be M U N.

That's the one that Commissioner Cantrell was just discussing.

This one is to accept staff's recommendation and change the designation to urban residential.

And then what's the other one that is MUN with 826 being urban residential?

And that one, sorry, opposite, and that one was just voted.

There was not pass.

Thank you for the clarity.

Okay.

All right.

Let's go ahead and take a vote on Commissioner Young's proposal to accept the staff's recommendation.

Commissioner Bickford.

No.

Commissioner Barossio?

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal?

No.

Commissioner Cantrell?

No.

Commissioner Cow?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

No.

Commissioner Wynne?

No.

Commissioner Oliverio?

No.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

I am a yes.

There's still five, and the mission does not pass.

And the motion does not pass.

So now we are on to the original motion on the floor, Commissioner Cantrell's, which would be to change everything.

Uh to M U N.

Is that right?

Everything that's proposed to be urban residential.

Everything that's proposed to be urban residential to MUN.

Correct.

Not the partials on firmware.

All right.

Are we ready to go to a vote?

Let's go.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

No.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Excuse me.

Yes.

And thank you for the spirit of conversation.

Commissioner Cow.

No.

Commissioner Bundle.

No.

Commissioner Casey?

No.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynne.

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young.

No.

I am also an no.

Commissioner Cow.

It was a no.

You were a no?

Alright, so that's five out of eleven.

So that motion did not pass either.

So the yay votes were let's.

All right, talk about it some more.

So does anybody feel like changing their vote on any of those?

They all seem to go down five to turn on that.

Well, we can also pass it on if I mean ultimately if you there's no consensus, then it's just noted as no consensus.

No recommendation.

Okay.

We're a mixed recommendation.

I would support that we pass it on with the record of what we discussed.

It shortened obviously, with the three different versions and just maybe a sentence of logic of why, just so they can understand what we're coming from, because I don't think that any one of us by one is gonna change that vote.

We all seem pretty steadfast.

I could be wrong, but I think we're all pretty steadfast where we're at.

So I would support that.

Commissioner Cow.

Maybe in an effort to see if I could ask one question uh to see if we can get to six votes.

Commissioner Bondo, I hear you on the substitute motion that you actually agreed with everything being urban residential except for A26.

Um that just I just want to point out that that is a heck of a lot co closer to the motion for accepting staff recommendation than the original motion on the floor to change all to from uh all urban residential to MUN.

Um I just wanted to share with you and really to the full the whole commission that your decision tonight to help recommend to city council to do MUN as opposed to urban residential, the where I see that as being problematic, is that does not get us anywhere near close enough to closing the gap that not only the city of San Jose sees with housing, that the state of California sees for the entire state, but also for San Jose.

And bringing this back to my family once again, not only am I struggling, my wife and I struggling to find housing, and yes, families and single individuals as Commissioner Escobar brought up, but also then the future generations, aka my son, my 10 month old, um, it's it's only gonna get worse unless we stop the bleeding somewhere.

So I just want to bring that up to your attention and for the commission to consider.

And if we ultimately can't figure it out, then yes, let's put it in the record as uh vote whatever with that we voted on, and I don't know if that's a no recommendation or I don't know how that works.

Um, but I just wanted to share that for the sake of argument.

Okay, so you're saying that Commissioner Bondel's suggestion was to go with staff's recommendation except for 826.

Yeah, and you're asking them to reconsider.

Yes.

I'll go to Commissioner Bondal.

I appreciate the conversations and the everybody's feedback.

I just think that some people want very high density and some people want low density.

And I think my motion fits the middle.

Let's reconsider it.

Let's take it on another vote.

If it doesn't, let's take it as no consensus, planning commission task force had no recommendation, and city council can then make a decision on it.

So I'll make a remotion for my past motion, which is to take staff's recommendation minus 826.

Second.

Any comments?

Commissioner Olivero.

No.

Okay.

Commissioner Cantrell.

I think I want to examine a uh calling a roll call vote.

No, we're the we're going to the vote already.

We can have chair, it's up to you.

Are you calling a roll call vote on the motion to reconsider Commissioner Bandal's motion, or are we having further discussion?

I'd suggest you allow me to ask a question first.

Very quickly.

Just a suggestion, Chair.

Okay.

Um, so I just want to examine the the whether or not that would be townhouses or not.

Uh, because I think that kind of dictates the density there and what will happen.

Um I understand, you know, you have certainly way more experience than I do looking at these properties.

Um it seems to me that this is a unique area that a developer would like to maximize their profitability.

That's generally what corporations do.

It just seems to me that this may be a unique area where more density will be sought to me.

Is my logic off?

I don't I don't know.

I'm asking, right now what we typically see is that the lower density townhome product is is more profitable and more sought after in terms of how the economics are working out.

So townhouses are printing cash basically.

So they're gonna print cash and and leave with envelopes of money.

I think that's why they we see them next to the very SBR station.

What's the so Commissioner Young mentioned uh there would be more likelihood that if we were urban residential that you might actually get more affordable housing?

And I just want to understand what affordable means.

Uh if affordable actually means below 80 AMI, or what what affordable are we talking about?

What would that likely become?

Yeah, so I think what what the commissioner was referring to would be uh below 80% AMI.

So it would be deed-restricted affordable housing, and that is typically at higher densities, and they receive uh subsidies or tax credits for financing.

So actual affordable, not essentially a little bit less than market rate, that's right.

Okay, Commissioner Abrosio and then uh Commissioner Bondal, and then we'll go to a roll call vote.

Question for our city attorney.

Could we do as what has been suggested in terms of if it's still 5-4 and it doesn't pass?

Could we just put in the notes 1A 3 didn't have a vote?

Is that something that can legitimately move forward?

Yes, so let's just so there's a motion to reconsider on the table.

If that fails, I suggest we just move on, and that will be there's no recommendation on A3 from the planning commission.

Perfect, thank you.

Commissioner Bondal.

Okay.

Well, Commissioner Alvario, can you make a quick so staff?

Would it be unheard of then of uh someone using the state density bonus in the MUN?

If they got up, you were able to purchase the land.

It seems like you're you're saying that a affordable housing developer wouldn't use state density bonus, that instead it would be a you feel a townhouse project um someone could if they had an a mixed use neighborhood um site use density bonus you can use it on mixed use neighborhood urban residential designations um our experience is that what is profitable as what um jared said is our town homes and that would that's the the development that would be attracted to these sites they don't have to produce anything sort of less dense and that's what's marketable and the town homes next to Barrier Sabart were those MUN I don't know we'd have to look at what what specific designation those had okay because I don't think I think the I mean listen it it no one really knows the future no one really knows how a piece of land's going to be utilized and what year what they're gonna do did they get the land for a deal therefore they're gonna get that or I mean it's but I I totally am with staff that this is your uh experience and I'm not gonna take away from that but I just think it's uh we don't know and uh I'll stop talking so we can have a vote.

Thank you.

Alright further in uh my experience when I see split votes usually city council will make up their own mind anyhow.

So what's the motion on the ground?

Or what's the motion on the floor now?

Motion on the ground is to uh to go with staff's recommendation minus 826 going to M UN and second by Commissioner Young.

Okay Vice Chair Bickbird No.

Commissioner Barroso no Commissioner Cantrell no Commissioner Cow?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar?

No.

Commissioner Oliverio no I'm sorry Commissioner Wynne.

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal.

Yes.

And I will I will stay with my no vote.

So we we stayed with no consensus on that one the votes went the same way that's all right.

All right.

No consensus.

So please talk to your city council member.

Definitely give uh Commissioner Mulcahi our love.

Councilman can I see that speaker.

Yes we would you like to take a break that's fine.

Okay.

Okay.

So now we're on to one B.

Quasi public quasi land.

So item number one under B.

Does anybody want to vote on that separately from item number two?

So quasi public quasi land.

I have questions now.

Commissioner Alvario staff on the PQP it's it would seem to me there's a difference between K-12 properties and church properties.

The impact of a particular church property closing uh and not being available is different than an elementary school closing and then population growth returns and then there's nowhere for them to go to school do you see a difference between those uses there's there's a difference um I think in the the higher level conversation there's still a demand for both of those public types of uses in those types of lands so I think they're I think we're primarily focused on schools but but there's still demand for those other faith-based use type sites as well so it's a similar consideration across those users although like I said I think the primary thing we're worried about is public schools but okay and then the criteria is to allow more uses potentially by right enabling more opportunities to retain the land as a PQP and that's going to be under the as you develop the criteria correct the the criteria would be more around um maintaining an adequate amount of PQP if we do change to residential and then secondarily we mentioned we're open to considering other uses within the PQP zoning district that would be public type uses that are not residential that we we could modify as part of this that would be separate from this framework the framework is really about the conversion to residential sure.

And then in your evaluation of requests since these are larger parcels are you thinking that staff's gonna say well we don't get a parcel this size every day so we should really try to do something you call it the word unique special different something that sort of maximizes the opportunity and I see the planning director might want to chat.

I'll start and then he can he can add something if he wants to yeah I think the the site size and location would be part of the context that we would evaluate when considering whether or not we would recommend a change right we would develop this cr you know the framework for how we would look at it but that could include things like site size and location and context and so you could have a large site that has a lot of opportunity maybe it's in a high resource area versus maybe a smaller site in a lower res you know in a lower resource area there's not as much opportunity or housing doesn't isn't as good of a fit there.

So all those are are pieces that we would add to this framework to consider because there's a lot of different if you look a lot of variation across PQP and especially school sites in terms of where they're positioned what their s what their characteristics are, what the existing facilities are like on the site and all those sorts of things.

So just to add a little bit of context to that really what we're looking at from a general plan perspective is the the distribution and availability of these sort of unique lands from a land use perspective not the individual use of it occurs.

So the way that the general plan's currently written is it sets out that we should preserve the opportunity for schools for churches for these other public uses within our communities distributed appropriately it doesn't give you what's the appropriate amount we never sort of consider it in that context.

So whenever somebody comes forward with a general plan amendment which is the appropriate process to consider changes whether it's a large site or a small site you know we could carve off pieces of a larger site to allow for a housing project the appropriate method is through that general plan amendment.

But right now the general plan just says preserve it.

So I think the intent of staff's recommendation is to really sort of create a framework that says this is the right amount to serve a population or a community of a certain size so that when we get to those decisions we have a basis to make them rather than it just being preserve as much as you can and it sort of becomes this you know question of the individual user really what we're trying to get at is the fundamentals of the use of land and the balance.

And final question when this finally comes forward for a final vote like 18 months from now some more that criteria will be fleshed out yeah that's right I think um we're still would need to scope this more but we would actually start developing the criteria and then start working on making recommendations as we go through the process of developing that criteria.

So we would bring look look to have both the the framework as well as looking to recommend certain sites as well you know depending upon um our capacity but we would try to um streamline to do things as quickly as possible.

Okay and I'll just make a simple motion to approve the staff recommendation for B I and B II second who's seconded that's yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner Cantrell did you have okay commission Commissioner Young okay um Commissioner Oliverio I'm gonna ask if you would be willing to withdraw that motion I I actually had a an approach and a proposal I wanted to present would would that be okay?

Feel free to I mean feel free feel free to flesh out the idea and if you want to make a substitute you're more than welcome.

Okay okay great.

Thank you.

So this is the one area of the um recommendations that I I actually don't agree with.

I think every everything else that the staff has done, I'm very supportive of.

I've done a lot of soul searching on this issue because it's it's difficult.

On the one hand, we want to preserve our public quasi public land for um community uses, whether it be recreation or community gatherings.

On the other hand, you know, we hate to be a broken record, but we have a severe housing crisis and the need for housing, and there was quite a bit of PQP land in the city.

So I I just wanted to talk about a couple problems I have with the recommendation, and then I'll make a substitute motion.

Um the approach that staff is taking, I appreciate what you're trying to do as far as coming up with a framework where you can evaluate a change in land use case by case.

But the problem with that approach is that let's say, for example, uh a school district that wants to convert a school, so they have they have no certainty whether the time, the money, the consultants they hire to make a proposal is going to be approved or not.

Uh it it this approach adds a lot of uncertainty, it uh lengthens the approval process, and the other thing I'm concerned about is it could really result in unequal treatment of a PQP parcel in one part of the city versus another.

So so I'm gonna be proposing something that's a little more forward, but uh but I want to address a couple of things that I've heard.

One is um we've had quite a few discussions on the commission level about changing demographics, you know, and I think there's been concerns expressed that uh, you know, that there's less kids going into school now, so the school districts are consolidating, but what if that changes in the future?

Well, we're not experts on demographics, the superintendent of schools are, right?

They're the ones that know, and there's the ones that have to talk to their school board and make a proposal.

So I don't really think that's a valid criteria for being concerned about converting these lands, and you know, that but the other one that I think is a more valid concern is that it's important to retain our PQP parcels as community recreation and gathering places.

But I was really struck by the letter that we got from SV at home.

Not so much the letter because we'd seen this before, but the people who signed the letter, and I just want to read these into the record.

So we have um Regina Celeston Williams, who's the executive director at SV at Home.

We also have Victor Vasquez, co-executive director of Somos Mayfair.

Samantha Blewis, the pastor at St.

Paul's Methodist Church, Maimona Offalberta, trustee with the Santa Clara County of Office of Education.

I might also point out that we had a representative from the County Office of Education our last meeting, advocating for a more broad application.

I won't go on, but we have several community organizations.

I think there's about 10 or 12 people that have signed this letter.

So my point is that if we're concerned about, you know, if we convert PQP PQP lands, that um it'll reduce community involvement or community resources.

I'm not sure that's a valid concern based on the people who signed this letter.

I think what they're looking at is there's more urgent need for housing for the people in their community than necessary in other gathering place.

So with all that in mind, and this kind of goes along with what Commissioner Oliveria was saying.

Um I'll make a motion in a minute, but I just kind of want to explain the direction I'm going, which is I think we should pull out the public education and the face faith-based parcels, um, because you know that's just a part of the PQP lands, and and the other PQP lands, I think should stay with the current designation.

So I'm gonna I'm just gonna suggest.

Let me go ahead and make a motion.

I'll make a motion that we um do one of two things.

One option one would be to remove educational and faith-based institutions from the PQP land use category.

That's one approach.

The other would be to expand allowable uses of education and faith-based parcels to allow public serving uses such as affordable housing, senior housing, educator and workforce housing, child care centers, community health centers, recreational facilities, cultural spaces, and other community-serving uses.

Sorry that that motion is so long, but I but I think you get the the gist, and I'd love to hear, you know, comments from other commissioners on that substitute motion if I get a second.

Can we remove certain types of land from a PQP designation like schools and faith-based?

It would require sort of creating another land use designation essentially, you'd be splitting PQP, so we'd have to come up with something to consider it separately, and then we'd have to then go through and designate those lands as that separate designation.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Okay, in that case, city attorney, can I modify my motion?

Yes, no second yet.

I know.

Can I modify it in a fishing trip and see if I go?

Okay, I'm gonna make a motion that we um that the staff develop a process to um expand the uses of PQP uh parcels um to allow the community-facing organization that I mentioned.

Okay, we have a second scope.

So can I actually just clarifying that?

So are in addition to these two, that's what you want to do, or or is it replacing that?

So, in addition to staff's recommendation, you're saying that you want to also have them replace that so none of these, maybe make sure it's so recommendations to develop a framework.

Yeah, that's right there.

Okay, which we will specify at the later time.

Yeah, okay.

Let me clarify.

So um I'm looking for something more expeditious than creating a framework.

So I guess um in response to your question, city attorney, it would be replace B I and two I with um the motion that I made, and we can work on if if there's support at all, we can work on clean up the language.

Okay, so just to clarify B1 and B2 would go away, and you would say you want staff to develop not a framework, or can you just reword this?

Because this is staff's recommendation.

So if you're gonna be clear directing staff and other folks are gonna be voting on it, we need clear direction of what this would look like.

And I'm I'm not clear on that yet.

Fair enough.

Fair enough, let me try this again.

Um so I I would propose that we I would propose that as a planning commission, we recommend that we expand the allowable uses of education and faith-based parcels to allow sorry, expand the allowable uses of PQP parcels to include community-based organizations.

Let me see if I get this.

From what I heard you talk about, it sounded like you want education-based PQP parcels and faith-based PQP parcels to be considered for housing development.

Is that correct?

Not all PQP parcels, but just those.

Is that what you're asking?

That was my original idea, but the director seemed to say that would be unwieldy and cumbersome.

So I I was trying I'm struggling here.

I'm trying, I'm trying to come up with uh maybe.

It's not that it can't be done, but it would be creating a different land use designation, right?

That would, yeah.

So are you asking staff to develop a new land use designation that is kind of a hybrid PQP land use designation for only faith-based lands and education lands to allow them to develop residential?

Yes, that's correct.

Is that jive with the secondary?

Okay.

I mean, I I so I'm sorry, I had my hand up.

Is it okay if I so two pieces?

I completely agree with Commissioner Young on immediately directing staff to expand the uh of acceptable uses for PQP lands.

I don't have a distinction between the the types of lands.

I think all lands should be expanded into those that you originally said, and I think that should be like one B1, and then I'm not opposed to the framework.

I think you do need a framework because all of this is going to happen in the same timeline, right?

We're gonna expand the uses and say we're recommending that that you expand all of these and develop the framework that can be applied equally across the city.

Is that jive with what you were thinking, Commissioner Young?

Yes, I'm fine with that.

Okay, yeah.

Would you like to change your motion to that?

He's about to do I think we're he's gonna clarify his motion.

Okay, we'll go from there.

Yes.

Order.

Vice Chair uh Bickford, would you be able to help me and please state what you've just said because I thought it was very well thought out.

So one B one would be recommend expanding acceptable uses of PQP property to include low-income housing.

I know you said five things, I think.

Can you you want to repeat those?

It was low-income housing, it was sure.

I had um daycare, affordable housing, senior housing, yeah.

Um, educator and workforce housing, child care committee health centers.

Yes.

So so those specific things, if we could put that in the first recommendation, that is a thing that we would like to see.

They should develop a framework because the framework does still need to be applied.

So I think developing that framework is still a thing that we would ask for.

Um, and then the last piece was evaluating requests and changes in land use based on that framework to unlock housing potential.

I think that framework, including the expanded uses, um, to to help us get to land use faster than individual evaluations of land use.

Sorry if I might just jump in on this.

I think I understand the sort of perspective.

Um, I think as we look at this currently, if you expand the uses to include residential development, there isn't a discretionary sort of opportunity there.

So we wouldn't need either of these two recommendations beyond these.

I'm not talking about general residential.

So I'll let staff jump in on sort of the impact of opening the door on affordable housing and possibility for other types of housing to leverage that.

Yeah, so I just wanted to clarify too, the other uses you mention are are already allowed in PQP.

So daycare centers are allowed.

So really when we're talking about our framework, it's really around which sites we would allow residential on, either affordable or more market rate or other types.

So our our concern is when we we do allow that affordable housing use that it starts to um erode the distinct land use of PQP as a separate public use.

So for me it's I think both Commissioner and Young and I are on the same page about establishing the framework doesn't necessarily say that we're going to do something different than what we're doing today.

That's the thing I'm trying to get to.

I think we are saying we're going to do something different from today and that we would work expeditiously to make changes to allow for certain sites to convert through the through that framework.

And certain sites may be better suited for affordable housing other sites could be suited for market rate housing.

Our concern again just to go back on allowing 100% affordable is with density bonus there's very little ability that we can do on those affordable projects like if we wanted to require um daycare or community uses in those developments our ability to to require that in the zoning is is is gone.

So it makes it very hard for us to continue those community uses on sites where there's affordable housing or even if we wanted to say maybe this part of the site could be affordable housing when we change that allowable use there's no ability to do that.

Whereas if we make these kind of strategic changes we could say maybe part of you know the the 10 acre site maybe four acres of that is appropriate for housing but the rest should stay community serving.

So all of that is only possible through the general plan use changes versus trying to to expand the allowable uses or when we change the allowable use to allow for affordable housing.

Thank you I see and I unfortunately withdraw my second I'll go ahead and second.

So seconding I'm second why don't we second Commissioner Young's motion which is what's motion is to get rid of one and two why don't we restate the motion right expense expensive and I didn't get where it went yeah I got lost in the dance so um my motion based on the discussion I really appreciate discussion also would be to um expand the allowable uses of PQP lands to include public serving uses such as affordable housing senior housing education workforce housing.

Still create the framework but add that we need to expand the allowed uses expand.

I would I would actually defer to the director and staff I I'm fine leaving the framework in if that makes sense if not yeah I think if you're looking to expand the uses allowed in PQP to allow for the types of housing you've just listed that would be one motion I don't know that the framework or the sort of evaluation to go through and do targeted general plan amendments is necessary if you're expanding the allowed uses in PQP.

Okay then we would remove the the language on the framework then I wouldn't refrain from seconding that Commissioner Bondal or do we have a second but can we continue the conversation maybe we can come back and before we move on we have to have a second to continue the conversation.

And without a second it will fail and then I think they were before me and then I'll come back.

That's okay.

I'm at the side you first so there's no second no second okay so that the motion fails there's no motion there's no motion on the floor.

It is not the line.

No, there is the first motion.

If we can vote on that one staff's recommendation.

So the staff, I just want to get better understanding staff um so the recommendation right now is that you guys are going to build a framework, and that's all.

We would so B1 is to develop the criteria and the framework, and then two is to evaluate requests for changes based upon that framework.

So that's what I was talking about in terms of how we would look to move expeditionally to look to consider changes that would allow for residential on certain sites, but not throughout PQP.

And the framework would would evaluate what's the amount of PQP land in an area and what's suitable now and in the future as we look to grow for public uses.

Okay, so not all of PQP, but some of PQP, which is school districts and faith-based use is some of those, not a blanket all of them, but we would look at areas of the city and look at requests from faith-based users or school districts to change their land, and then we would make individual changes to those sites to allow that.

Yeah, because this is my thought process is that you know when we talk about PQP in the past couple months, uh it's always been towards school districts, because that's the hot hottest topic right now.

And what the confusion was was when you guys had our we had our last meeting, you guys brought up all the PQP, which brought up hospitals, and we were just like, wait, hold a minute, wait a minute.

So some members didn't know that even the hospitals are a PQP, and then we're just kind of finding that out.

But I support that you guys look at the framework, create a framework, and the framework not be the same throughout the city.

It needs to be a case-by-case scenario, which is something that you guys have suggested before, because a school district closing in one area is it's totally different than it closing in another area.

For example, Alan Rock right now is has so many vacant schools, evergreen does not.

So the same rules shouldn't be applied to those four versus the one that closed in Evergreen.

I think it should be case-by-case scenario because what's gonna happen in the future is uh when if densities were to come back, young adults were to start having more kids, uh the need for the schools will be different in different areas.

So I think it should be a case-by-case scenario, and uh that's just my thought process.

Thank you.

Commissioner Barroso.

Perfect, thank you.

Um, yes, and exactly uh what uh Commissioner Bandel said, not only will those dynamics happen if we go with a citywide approach, I think the staff's recommendation of there being um uh an eye towards an appropriate amount of distribution makes sense because looking at it along those lines, the schools that are closing, like Alum Rock closed six last year, are not in high resourced areas.

My wife is a principal in well in a district in San Jose that hasn't closed anything, and they only have one Title One school, and the majority are not Title I schools, which for the folks who are wondering what title one is, at least 40% of your um students and families are um would qualify for low-income.

Um again, certain parts of the city will then be burdened.

Well, not burdened, I don't know what the right word is, depending on how you fall on this, but they would be the ones to take on the affordable housing, right?

And then there we go again, where the affluent neighborhoods that aren't closing schools aren't closing their hospitals, um aren't doing away with their YMCAs and whatnot, they maintain that community benefit that you just explained.

So I think um I appreciate the slide, like not only the slides where you opened our eyes to what else qualifies as PQPs, but also the slides that kind of show those radar um of how vibrant a community could be with PQP scattered among the city, um, and what happens when we just apply a broad brush and just paint everything one color, right?

And have one approach for everything.

Slippery slippery slope.

So I do um again, I stand by uh the motion on the floor.

Um, and then I'll stop there for now, thank you.

Commissioner Gentrell.

One of the things I like most about this body is there are experts from kind of every industry here.

Uh I'm gonna lean into Commissioner Barosio's perspective, because you know, quite honestly, is probably the most qualified to in this room to talk about this.

Um I I do have questions about the process that you would create.

Um, because while I trust you individually, you're not always gonna be here.

Um and you know, someone might start making decisions that are inconsistent with your intended formula or process or whatever it is.

So that that does concern me a little bit, because I I'd like to see what that looks like, and I guess we're just deferring it to another day, but we will get a chance to review what that looks like, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, and then second, this would this would also become a mis ministerial process, correct?

Or not necessarily, no, because it still requires a general plan change.

Um so I think we're we're saying that we would work closely and help facilitate it, so it's maybe not a a privately initiated general plan change, but something the city would initiate, um, so we make it easier.

Um ideally we could go to that easier process, but with the way the state laws work now, our our discretion is really at that general plan level, unfortunately.

So we would try to make it as expeditious as possible when we develop the framework, but it still can't be at that ministerial level.

Now, on sites where we we did change it to allow for residential, the individual project itself would likely be ministerial or a streamlined process.

But that initial change of going from PQP to another color, another use, that would be not a ministerial process but a discretionary process.

Okay.

So that would that might become very expensive also, right?

For someone who wants to to change things.

No, what what we're normally, yes, if it were a privately initiated process, but I think what we're saying is we would take that on as a part of this framework so that it would not be that expensive process of going through a private general plan amendment.

Okay.

Um I also respect what what Commissioner Young was saying about those organizations that um to be honest, I think should have a stake in this conversation.

Um I'm hoping that you will continue to engage those organizations as well.

Yeah, absolutely.

I I would envision this process as working very closely with school districts and other users of those sites as a part of this process, which included more than just engagement, right?

It would be a uh a collaborative process in terms of how we will go about this.

Okay, okay, so I think we'll all be watching this space very closely.

Um thank you.

I appreciate it.

Commissioner Alvario.

Yes.

A city initiated general plan is a a huge process for the city to uh undertake and taking away a lot of the arguments that uh a school district wouldn't be able to go through that.

So I think that's uh part of the criteria to look forward to the final.

Uh school districts already have the right to build a variety of housing on their properties.

And I think a real important thing, as I said in the meeting last week, we have a community center in district six and district nine, because the city had discretion on PQP land that would have just been another set of houses.

Um, but I think it's just important to note and finally as these uh school district property might come up, you know, this neighborhood relies on that for open space.

Being able to make certain that a certain amount of that parcels available for the public permanently is what discretion uh provides.

Thank you.

Okay.

My personal view is just that I think the school districts have a pretty good idea of what they want to do with their own land and what they need to do to stay open.

I of course want to see them able to use it expansively as suggested by folks like from Mayfair, folks from SV at home, et cetera.

But I don't want to see something that prevents a school district from allowing something like Makla to be built on their land.

But best of luck with developing the framework, I'm in uh agree with the motion.

So if we're ready for a roll call vote, Vice Chair Bickford.

Yeah, what we what is the motion?

The motion is to accept staff recognition.

Cool.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner.

Commissioner Brosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell?

Yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar?

Yes.

Commissioner Wynn?

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio?

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Myself is yes.

That's unanimous 11.

Oliver.

Olivario.

Okay, moving on to section 2A.

Let's see.

Section 2.

I don't even know if 2A is going to stick together.

Okay.

Can we just move through all these as a lump?

We can move through two.

We can try to go through we want to go through 2A as a together.

Would you like to make a motion?

I motion that we approve section two in its entirety.

Second wait can we move to I we have a motion on the floor.

Do we have a second one?

Yeah.

We have a motion on the floor.

This motion and a second go ahead Commissioner Cow feel free to make a substitute motion whatever you would like.

Before the motion was gonna be made I just wanted to s suggest that as a way to help move the agenda along if there are specific items that Commissioners want to talk about to highlight which ones they are and asked those to be polled for discussion and if there aren't discussions on the majority of the rest of them which I I mean I I guess I'm making an assumption here that there won't be discussion on literally every single item then we can make a big motion to pass those and then the ones that have discussion then we just discuss those few to help with time just being mindful of time.

We only have 28 to go I'm happy to remove my motion and I'll take that suggestion and if there are individual items that someone wants to suggest let's let's do that.

Okay is there anything from two a that anybody would like to pull out before we vote on the remainder of two a thank you commissioner can I appreciate that I'll I'll remove two i two a i okay any other ones I think if you're going to do two i you might want to do uh two a icause those are kind of hand in hand okay and two a three and four anyone well so we can do a motion is there a motion to amend the motion is that what you're saying to remove two AI because then I heard something from Commissioner Oliveira said to AI I.

Oh just like just two AI.

Two AI yeah and then before we make a motion can we pull something off first before making the motion that's what Commissioner Cow is suggesting before we get to the motion you said you'd like to remove two AI.

Commissioner Olivario said two AI I also maybe just remove all of A.

I mean because then it's it's everything because everyone just started listing it off and that's about the majority has to deal with that topic because everything else I mean look down the list where if anyone's got a big well missing middle housing.

Russ's urban villages they're all pretty interconnected to two itself.

Let's all right let's start with 2A Let's start with 2AI.

So alone?

Because that's been a big topic that we've been discussing for some time.

32, 40.

What do we want to vote on.

So the motion to amend Commissioner Cantrell's motion would be to remove two AI alone.

There was some concern from Commissioner Oliverio that they're all related, because if you're going to talk about increasing residential density to 32 dwelling units per acre, that does that also mean do you change the 35 foot height limit?

Do you change the maximum FAR, etc.

etc.

So do you does that make sense to you?

So we're moving to A, right?

It could be just 2A.

And do that separate.

Is that a okay?

So that's your motion to amend the original motion to sub to take out two A.

Is there a second for that sub that amended motion?

Motion to amend.

Fine.

Could be a friendly amendment then.

Yes, right.

One motion on the floor.

Okay.

We should be able to talk about it.

So friendly, you get a boxy chocolate.

And that's okay with the seconder, Casey.

No.

No.

Okay.

So then we just have a motion to amend.

You want to second that motion, Commissioner Cantrell?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

So we're going to be voting on everything minus two A right now.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh, the attorney.

We can do a roll call vote.

Commissioner Vice Chair Vickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barrosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondall.

Uh yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynn?

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Myself is yes, so it passes unanimously.

So now we just have two A.

Two A.

2A.

Okay.

So we just knocked out 10 items.

Okay, 2I.

2A.

Okay.

2A.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Commissioner Cantrell, for the friendly amendment.

I just want to quickly say that I I you know get that we've been here for a while.

This is longer than our most meetings, but today is the day to jump in when you need to jump in.

Let's not try to just jam past it.

We've been working on this since October.

It takes another 15 minutes.

It takes another 15 minutes.

If we need to take a break, we'll take a break.

Not just to clarify to clarify, this is not a friendly amendment because the seconder said no.

So you made a motion to amend.

Just want to make sure that you know that.

Your motion seconded by Commissioner Cantrell.

Okay.

What motion?

Okay.

Yeah.

We've done that.

Clarifying though that it was not a friendly amendment.

Everybody's friends.

We've closed the door on the rest of that one.

We're on two way.

Great.

Okay.

City attorney, thank you for the clarification.

It's not a friendly amendment, my motion that passed.

Thank you for the record.

But yes, uh, if it takes time, it takes time, but let's talk about two way.

Um and then if we do we want to take a break at some point, um just trying that out there to go to before it.

Okay, okay.

So uh so staff for uh the designation that we're moving from eight dwelling units to 32.

Um, the 32 is not a minimum, right?

That's a concern that some of the residents are are having.

Uh they're saying, oh man, what the heck?

We're jumping up 4x.

Um could you just please clarify that for the record?

It's up to 32 dwelling units per acre.

So that's the maximum.

There is no minimum.

And then it also this is applied citywide, right?

Not just one specific area.

It applies to all properties with the designation of RN, except for those ones that we've we're proposing to exclude um in areas like high fire, very high fire zones, but otherwise all properties designated residential neighborhood.

And then if there's an overlay, does the overlay take over or does this apply?

Who I'm not sure we have too many overlays that would apply in this case.

Generally, an overlay would would apply before the debate, but for the most part, this would apply.

Yeah.

So if if there was a PD overlay, what would the PD dwelling units take into effect?

No, the PD is not an overlay, it's the actual zoning district.

So in this case, the general plan designation which allows this higher density would prevail.

So the 32 would prevail.

It would be applicable to PD zoning districts as well.

Yes.

As long as they have the R and land use designation.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So that's it for more questions for now.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Actually, I want to thank you for the clarifications.

Uh materially there.

I don't think it changes any perspective here.

Correct?

So I motion that we approve.

Um 2A as it is from the recommendation from staff.

Second.

All right.

Nobody else have any.

Second was Casey.

Motion by Commissioner Cantrell and a second by Casey.

Casey.

Okay.

I mean.

This is to approve staff's recommendation for 2A.

Yes.

Okay.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes, but I'm confused why we pulled it out to begin.

It just finds some clarifications.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Morosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal.

Yes.

I thought that I pulled it off because I thought right now would have been an appropriate time to ask my questions regarding this topic.

Thank you.

Sure.

Sorry.

Could we start by what we're going to do?

We're voting to accept staff's recommendation to it.

Thank you.

So Commissioner Bondal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Clear resounding yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Oops.

No changes.

Then yes.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Yes.

Commissioner Olivario.

No.

Commissioner Young.

Yes.

And myself is a no.

I would actually rather see 40.

But the motion passes 9 to 2.

And Chair, I didn't have a chance to comment prior to the vote.

I just wanted to summarize that I think what's being proposed is once neighborhoods actually catch on, I think it's going to potentially generate a lot of mistrust of City Hall since this is not being done around the country.

It's rare and infrequent.

The results are not clear from Minnesota and Oregon that it actually provides affordability and uh and other factors.

I think if we were in a situation where the state was doing nothing and never passing a law on housing, that's a different story.

But we have a state that is passing laws left and right and more coming.

And I think if we just simply implement state law, we will generate uh more units and actually in a way that's better for transportation for the environment that's kind of goes with the basic precepts of the general plan 2040, where uh the planning and building of the city is intentional rather than haphazard.

Thank you.

Alright.

On to urban village strategy number three.

Okay.

Is there anything that anybody would like to take out of number three that you'd like to discuss or vote on individually?

Motion to approve.

I'll just second your words about that.

Okay.

Motion to approve, second and file area.

Comments from anybody before we go to a vote?

See none.

We'll move to roll call vote.

Commissioner Bickford?

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynne.

Yes.

Commissioner Alvaro.

Yes.

Commissioner Young.

Yes.

I am a yes.

Unanimous 11.

Okay.

Moving on to the very last item of the 37.

Jobs to employed residence ratio.

Should we maintain the current target jobs to earn employed resident ratio of 1.1?

Motion to support the staff recommendation.

Second.

We have a motion on the floor.

Commissioner Cantrell.

I'm curious if we've never reached this goal, why we still are targeting it.

Who's the second?

Permission to respond.

I asked that question actually in uh another conversation.

Commissioner Cantrell.

And the answer was it's uh a number that we should aspire to, regardless of whether today we can meet it, because if we get there, it is much better for our city.

And decreasing it creates a perception that we're not even trying to get there, and we don't want to do that.

Okay.

Um so my second question is give me the formula for this.

Yeah, what is what is this?

What's the math?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

What is the math?

How did we get to this number?

So, the way that jobs to employed residents is calculated, I guess to get to the, I think what you're asking for is the methodology of how we're looking at the future, right?

So, and I'll ask Sanjita Ruth to also add to this if I get this wrong, but what we look at is we look at population projections, but then we specifically look at growth in um uh the employed population.

So um over 16 and the growth in that segment, um, and then um look at what the unemployment rate is and what the changes to the unemployment rate are projected to be.

And that's sort of how the calculation is determined.

Um we did look at various projections from Plan Bay Area and the Department of Finance as well in terms of population growth and projections.

Um, what we found based upon those two, because they're kind of the two extremes in terms of conservative population growth and then more generous population growth is that we're still around this target.

You know, if we look at kind of those those two gauges.

Um then I guess also to add on to what Commissioner Bickford said.

If we were to adjust this ratio, it would mean lowering our overall jobs capacity that we've planned for in the general plan.

And even though it is a very aspirational goal, we feel like we should still maintain that capacity for in the future if there was something that came through that was very you know beneficial to the city economically.

Um, you know, why why lower that that number that we've already sort of set as a maximum cap?

So that's that's some of the thinking and uh Tanjita.

I don't know if you want to add anything.

Okay, so my my concern is that that that number has been used for a long time to keep or create uses that haven't been absorbed into the marketplace, for example, retail in commercial and apartment buildings.

Um, I'm not sure that we're getting anywhere with us, so I'm concerned that it could actually stagnate growth and not actually create it.

I'm gonna jump in there for a second.

So obviously, uh as we think about the availability of employment lands, it is a policy discussion.

Um, it it plays less into those conversations about mixed use, and actually the council's taken sort of very direct uh or given us a very sort of clear direction around uh, you know, reducing requirements or eliminating requirements for residential development around mixed use.

I think the context and the importance of the jobs to employ ratio, employed resident ratio, is really about the idea that as a city, you know, throughout that period of extreme growth between 1950 and 1970, we became very much the bedroom community for the broader Silicon Valley and the area.

As a result, we're sort of, and I don't have the the latest number, but you know, typically we would say something in the region of 60% of our employed residents leave the city every day to go work in surrounding communities.

And so the general plan sets out a goal to say that you know we really value uh creating a complete community that offers employment to residents within our boundaries because not only does it help us sort of meet our aspirations fiscally as a city, um, it also supports our climate goals by reducing people traveling in cars.

Um, you know, it creates vibrant spaces.

So it's broader than just saying we need just this land to support this many people, it's about that sort of complete community vision.

Okay, so how does this play into land use and zoning?

So we use it as a baseline for that jobs number, right?

But the jobs number doesn't necessarily equate to the amount of land that we have available when you actually look at you know the total amount of land when we I mean the the vast majority of jobs planned in the city occur in our growth areas and our employment areas, so North San Jose, uh Edenville and South San Jose, downtown some amount in West San Jose.

Um, it would take a significant transformation of those areas to really intensify employment uses to actually meet some of these aspirational goals.

Um so it's certainly we're not but yet we're not creating any more of those lands.

So it's not pushing out residential development in any way.

Um it's really just to help us maintain that goal and sort of think about how do we preserve the opportunity for the employment for the residents of this city as we continue to grow.

Okay.

I I I'm making a religious argument here, I think.

Um so I'll just move forward.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bandal.

Um does work from home apply to this or no to the jobs counted in the numerator.

No, it does not.

Okay.

It would factor into the existing jobs to employ residents.

Yes.

So it's not in the numerator, right?

So again, the jobs and the employed residence aren't necessarily the same, right?

It's not like an employed resident that has a job in this city.

So if somebody is employed and a resident of the city, they occur in the employed resident number.

Um we don't count work from home jobs unless it's a business that's registered in San Jose.

So hybrid work, so somebody that's working out of a corporate office in a surrounding community that has the opportunity to spend a day or two at home.

We don't get credit for those jobs in any way.

City does not collect business taxes from folks that do remote work.

No, I understand that.

But it's just, you know, when you think of the ratio, you think of, you know, uh, who's employed in the city of San Jose not working?

I'm just throwing that out there.

Just what I get it, that's why that's the question, but um but yeah, going along with the Commissioner Bigford's comments uh I think uh we need to chase the one point one.

I think this having this one point one shows that our mindset, our trajectory is to kind of go there.

Um, and be as of our surrounding cities that have 2.0, 1.8, 1.6.

So I appreciate that and I support the 4A and I like is there a motion on the floor at the moment or okay?

Support the motion.

Okay, let's go to a roll call vote.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Brosio.

Yes.

Commissioner Bondol, Commissioner Cantrell.

My mom asked me to not have religious or political arguments and kind company.

So I'll say yes.

Commissioner Cao.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Eskomar.

Yes.

Commissioner Nguyen.

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young.

Yes.

I am a yes to the missing one.

Did I miss anyone?

Okay, that's 11-0.

Uh, motion passes unanimously.

All right, that's the end of the general plan public hearing.

Thank you all.

All right, moving on.

Referrals from City Council, boards, commissions, or other agencies.

So just to uh give you an update, the uh only item that's been seen before the uh city council that uh came before.

Sorry, I'm sure being good in welfare.

There are no referrals.

But moving on to report from City Council.

The only item that City Council seen that came before the planning commission is the general plan annual report, uh which the commission previously saw, so city council considered that and approved it as part of yesterday's consent calendar.

Okay, subcommittee formation report and outstanding items.

See none.

Okay, moving on to item 9C, election of the chair and vice chair for fiscal year 2026.

Does anybody want to start?

Commissioner Oliverio.

Will the vice chair be willing to serve as chair?

Sure.

I nominate the vice chair as chair.

Do we have a second?

A second.

Second.

Any comments?

Anything else?

Um I just want to say for those of you who are new and don't really know how this works.

Um can nominate as many people.

It can be second or not second.

I mean, just somebody put up a nomination.

That person usually accepts the nomination and say yes, I want to be that position.

Um you can have several at once.

Um if we get too many, then we'll probably just vote on them.

But I think uh just if there's any questions about it, it's very informal.

This is you know, not there's no rules of order here, so just we got somebody who wants to do it.

Looks like Vice Chair Bickford is the candidate for chair, and if there are any other recommendations, or if you guys want to vote, I think it's good to have two all the nominate um Commissioner Cantrell.

All right.

I would also like to see uh Commissioner Cantrell's name in for chair personally.

anybody else?

Yes.

I'd like to I'd like to nominate uh Commissioner Young as vice chair, if he's willing to serve.

Second, I accept, thank you.

Okay.

Just so we know who who qualifies, who's who's staying for another term, or uh, if that list is longer, like who's not coming back?

I think you are the only one that's not coming back.

Okay, okay, good.

So everyone else is eligible.

Okay, good.

Um, are we doing chair first and then vice chair?

Or should we wait to do one and then move on to the next?

We can do this.

We can do chair first.

Uh sorry, can I ask?

Commissioner Young.

Uh on the um city website it says that your second term is ending now.

Is that a misprint?

I'm sorry.

Yes.

The city website says that your second term is ending June 30th, 2026.

Uh I just got sworn in today.

So I am serving another four years.

Okay.

Okay.

How about this?

We have a motion and a second for Vice Chair Bickford.

I would like to make I'll we'll just do it the same way with substitute motions.

I'd like to make a substitute motion for the chair to be Cantrell.

Do I have a second?

Uh well, yeah.

I nominated as well, so I'll do the second.

What's that?

I nominated him as well, so I'll do the second thing.

Okay.

So we have a second.

Discussion.

Am I allowed to uh in the past we've done it like you may please go ahead and I'm uh I will happily withdraw my uh chair position because I think Commissioner Cantrell would do an amazing job.

Okay.

I was just gonna say, I think each person just says who they want.

It's not like you take one at a time.

But if you're withdrawing, then takes care of that.

Any other nominees for chair?

By acclimation.

Okay, then roll call vote.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso?

Yes.

Commissioner Bondal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynne.

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio?

Commissioner Young.

Yes.

Myself as a yes.

All right.

And so congratulations, Commissioner Cantrell.

You have been voted to be chair for the 26 27 year unanimously.

Thank you so much.

And I actually want to thank you for your grace.

I appreciate it.

And thank you all for your support.

Okay.

Then we've heard Commissioner Young's name as vice chair.

Commissioner Bickford.

Okay.

Do we have a second for Commissioner Young?

I think we did.

Second.

Second from Casey.

Commissioner Barosio.

What's going on?

I nominate Commissioner Bickford.

I think she's done an amazing job as as Vice Chair.

Oh, you already said no.

Oh, gee calling.

No.

It's two years in a row, Grosso.

There's a lot of time.

And Commissioner Bickford, I I'd be glad to defer to you if you'd like to remain.

Totally, totally up to you.

Commissioner Young, I think we would benefit from your experience and enthusiasm.

And I'm here for four more years, so I have time.

Just like you.

Okay.

Did we have a second for Commissioner Young?

Okay.

All right.

Vice Chair Bickford.

Yes.

Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal.

Yes, and uh congratulations on getting sworn in today again.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes, and no greater honor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cao.

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Wynne?

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

Commissioner Young.

Yes.

Myself is a yes.

Unanimous.

Congratulations, Vice Chair Young.

Okay.

Next we have a recognition of the Planning Commissioner's service on the uh 25-26 General Plan four-year review task force.

Is that I think we already did that.

So next is recognition of Commissioner Luis Barroso's service to the City of San Jose and to the Planning Commission of the City of San Jose.

I first watched Commissioner Barroso interview alongside Commissioner Olivario on YouTube, probably in 2020.

And I remember the speech you gave and why you wanted to be a planning commissioner, and I am so glad that you have been a member of this commission.

It's been wonderful working with you.

Right on, thank you.

And and it's been great learning from everyone that is here and people that uh I met that are no longer here.

And I know you guys will continue the great work.

Thank you.

And thank you to staff.

I know you guys put in a lot of hours and have a lot of patience.

And at the task force meeting, um, I wanted to know like what our nicknames were.

But maybe now that I'm off the commission, you can tell me.

But thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you for the community that has uh has been watching and has been um following things that impact their city.

Thank you to to them as well.

All right, let's finish up and then we'll take a picture.

Okay, anything for the public record?

Okay, hearing nothing, then we will adjourn this meeting at 9 40 p.m.